An e-mailer ripped into me for not highlighting this:
President Obama observed the end of the war in Iraq on Wednesday before an audience of those who fought in it, telling a crowd of returning war veterans that the nearly nine years of conflict in Iraq, a war now indelibly imprinted on the national psyche, had come to a close.
“As your commander in chief, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I’m proud to finally say these two words,” Mr. Obama told a crowded hangar at this famed North Carolina army base that is home to the 82nd Airborne Division: “Welcome home.”
Calling it a “historic moment,” Mr. Obama, who has over the years of his presidency had his ups and down with his own military leaders, if not the enlisted men and women, infused his remarks with far more accolades for the military than the usual few that he dispenses to local politicians at the beginning of most of his standard speeches.
This time, he thanked the “legendary” 82nd Airborne Division. He thanked senior enlisted leaders. And the Sky Dragons of the 18th Airborne Corps. And the Special Operations Forces. And military families. In fact, the president wrapped himself in all of the storied patriotism and history of the country’s armed forces, congratulating the assembled troops for the job they did in Iraq — a war which he himself never approved.
It was a tough balance to strike. Mr. Obama had to speak of legendary battles in places like Falluja without referencing the weapons of mass destruction that were never found; he noted the sectarian violence without bringing up the years of fear that gripped the United States and the rest of the world back in 2004, 2005 and 2006, when it looked as if the American invasion of Iraq would engulf an already volatile region.
“We remember the early days — the American units that streaked across the sands and skies of Iraq,” Mr. Obama said. “In battles from Nasiriya to Karbala to Baghdad, American troops broke the back of a brutal dictator in less than a month.”
And yet, Mr. Obama said, “we know too well the heavy costs” of the Iraq War: “Nearly 4,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 202 fallen heroes from here at Fort Bragg. 202.”
The speech was the latest in a series of public appearances orchestrated by the White House to signal the end of the conflict and to drive home the point that Mr. Obama fulfilled one of his 2008 presidential campaign promises. At times somber, at times ebullient — there were plenty of “Hooahs” during his speech — the president tried to project an understanding of what the people, who have seen their family members go off to fight a war that most Americans came to oppose, have been through.
I hesitate to say this is the end, but it sure looks like we are close to it, with very few troops left in theatre.
Baud
Are we really finally in the last throes of the Iraq war?
Linda Featheringill
Very nice. Always good to hear about the end to a war.
Unabogie
Wait, so you’re saying that in addition to the things we don’t like, he’s also done some things we really love, like ending the GODDAMN IRAQ WAR???
I don’t know how to feel about this. On the one hand, it’s awesome. But on the other, if I say that he’s done something awesome, how can I maintain my perfect high dudgeon?
Hill Dweller
The wingers were particularly nasty about this today. McGramps embarrassed himself…again.
Major Mel Funkshun
“We couldn’t have done it without George W. Bush” Hannity, probably tonight.
lamh35
@Hill Dweller:
yep. even Mark “the dick” Halperin commented on his drudge-lite page that the partiship seen by GOP was sad and “ashame”.
Still he’s pimping for Romney.
And Gramps McCain needs to calm down or he’s likely to stroke out.
Elisabeth
He called Michelle “cute” at the beginning of his remarks, too. Which means absolutely nothing but since the whole speech seems to have been met with a bunch of “meh” on both sides of the aisle I figured I’d mention it.
Baud
@Major Mel Funkshun:
Technically, that’s correct. We couldn’t have ended the war if GWB hadn’t started it.
different-church-lady
Any joy I would have about this is entirely muted by my memories of the horror of getting it all going in the first place.
It will be interesting to see how certain manic progressives try to continue to insist we haven’t actually ended it.
lamh35
@Elisabeth: not to be all Mark Halperin all the time, but Halperin actually had a “seperate” post on how good Michelle O’s introduction was powerful and heartfelt and how Michelle O on the campaign trail will be a force to be reckoned with.
I think the Village like Michelle O way better than POTUS for sure.
lacp
Most excellent – now we have plenty of spare troops to invade Iran.
Hill Dweller
@lamh35: I realize McCain’s POW status seems to nullify any wrongdoing on his part, but he has really embarrassed himself in the last few years.
Egg Berry
Technically, the only reason it’s ending now is because the Iraqis told us to GTFO
The Dangerman
@Hill Dweller:
I don’t get what they wanted (other than the unending need to flame Obama); Iraq, a nascent Democracy, made it crystal clear they wanted us gone. So, we’re gone…
…did they really want us to be seen as an occupying force like, say, Saudi Arabia back in the day? That didn’t exactly have a good ending.
different-church-lady
@Baud: “Without whom all of this would not have been necessary.
Elisabeth
@lamh35:
And he’s right. She obviously meant what she was saying as well which helps.
Linda Featheringill
@Egg Berry:
Yes.
But I’m so pleased to see our troops coming home that I’m not going to mention that. And I’m willing to let anyone take credit for it. Whatever. As long as the thing is over with.
Liberty60
Mebbe the wingers would have been more receptive if O had been wearing a codpiece.
lamh35
@Egg Berry: @Linda Featheringill: And GWB and any GOP administration would NOT have heeded the Iraqi government would they.
So yeah the Iraqi’s wanted us to GTFO, but make no mistake as evidenced by McCain’s stroke-out today, a GOP administration would have looked and probably found a way around the Iraqis.
So yeah, the Obama administration deserves some credit for using the Iraqui’s wish for us to GTFO and saying “you want us gone, then buh-bye”
srv
LET’S ROLL
James
Thanks for mentioning it, John. I thought it was a particularly eloquent speech worthy of a commander-in-chief. There was no triumphalism, but was all about giving the troops their due, putting it in historic perspective and thanking them and their families on behalf of all Americans.
I hated Helene Cooper(NYT) for making it about politics. It wasn’t. And I regret that it didn’t get more attention on this side of the aisle. The end of the Iraq War. That’s what we were doing here, right?
Rp
How big of you to acknowledge this.
John Cole
@srv: It’s just embarrassing.
SteveinSC
Yes, but the rot lives on. Obama, not surprisingly, has caved on the indefinite detention of people, including American citizens on American soil. 600 years of Anglo-American rights being shit-canned by the pansy in the White House.
burnspbesq
@Unabogie:
Umm, you could, umm, redirect it toward the party that is really destroying this country.
Punchy
Anyone got a link to what McGrampypants said? Missed it….
AA+ Bonds
As long as we have a government presence there, many different groups will try to kill them. And as long as those groups try to kill them, we risk some asshole dragging us back into the theater. I’d rather we make it clear that Iraq is “at your own risk”.
Baud
@SteveinSC:
That’s just as false as it was two posts ago.
different-church-lady
@John Cole: You take a lot of shit you don’t deserve.
This, however, is not an example of such.
burnspbesq
@SteveinSC:
SteveinSC, not surprisingly, has not read the statutory language, and is writing absolute untruths about what it says. Get a clue, willya?
different-church-lady
@Baud: I’m starting to sense the pungent aroma of zombie lie in the air. And I don’t even know what the hell is really going on.
srv
@John Cole: No, you have atoned. It’s not meant to be mean (anymore), it’s just nostalgia.
MikeJ
@burnspbesq: Truth isn’t that important if lies can help in the attack against the dusky usurper.
burnspbesq
@The Dangerman:
And if the Iraqi people, in their infinite sovereign wisdom, choose to put in place a vicious, murdering theocracy, could we for once remember that it’s none of our damn business.
El Cid
For Purposes of Annoying Republicans, [I feel situationally free to declare a complicated situation instead simple and] BARACK OBAMA ENDED OUR WAR IN IRAQ AND BROUGHT OUR TROOPS HOME!
SteveinSC
@burnspbesq: Well if you think this is wrong, why don’t you try to explain it to Jerry Nadler?
Jason
Call me a crazy dirty hippy if you wish, but why is every serviceman who gets killed in a war now a hero? My understanding is, in world war II, the rubrik war hero was reserved for an unusually brave fighter, not simply those who were unlucky enough to get hit.
different-church-lady
@Jason: Well, I get what you’re saying, but in my eyes, every damn troop, dead or alive, is a hero just for having gone into that hellhole.
Villago Delenda Est
@Punchy:
Someone posted an excerpt a few threads back.
burnspbesq
@SteveinSC:
Apparently Nadler is no more literate than you.
SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be–
(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and
(B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that date.
lamh35
@different-church-lady: @Jason:
To my mind ANYONE who VOLUNTEERS to defend this country for virtuous or non-virtous reasons who is killed in the “line of duty” deserves to be termed a hero.
No one forces anyone to join the armed forces anymore, so yeah, those who do deserves a higher status in my book even if they weren’t shot down or made a P.O.W.
KS in MA
@lamh35: You’re absolutely right. That’s one of the coolest things about the O administration, to my mind.
burnspbesq
I would add that in my personal view, which is apparently not shared by the D.C. Circuit, which has jurisdiciton over Gitmo habeas cases, Section 1032 is unconstitutional. I’m still trying to figure out how attacks on U.S. service members, thousands of miles from the United States, get to be an “insurrection” within the meaning of the Constitutional provisions about suspension of habeas.
Gex
@Jason: Not that different-church-lady is wrong, but they’ve been working us up to non-stop warrior worship for quite some time now. We can’t even go to a regular season sporting event without fellating the armed services. Helps keep the population properly servile to the warrior class.
burnspbesq
@Gex:
Say what, now? In case you’ve forgotten, Earth was not defeated by Minbar.
SteveinSC
@burnspbesq: So it is your position that the executive branch cannot detain an American citizen, during a situation of “so-called war”, including incarceration in the United States, under the language of the Defense Appropriations Bill and that you claim to understand the language better than Congressman Nadler? Now that is a stretch.
Villago Delenda Est
@Gex:
Which, as a former warrior, disgusts me no end.
This country USED to be leery of a standing army. That’s why you’ve got 2nd and 3rd Amendments.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Wow – that Saddam must have been a superman, fighting all by himself in battles from Nasiriya to Karbala to Baghdad against an entire army…
Oh, wait, let me rewrite it a bit…
“We remember the early days — the American units that invaded and streaked across the sands and skies of Iraq,” Mr. Obama said. “In battles from Nasiriya to Karbala to Baghdad, American troops engaged in an unsanctioned war of aggression, a crime against humanity under international law, and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers attempting to resist an invasion in less than a month.”
Happy to help.
SteveinSC
@Gex: Exactly. We have the military we have now because the citizen-army was not up to foreign adventures, like Vietnam, the way a good “volunteer” (vide mercenary) army is.
boss bitch
@Egg Berry:
Really? that’s funny because quite a few people were saying the agreement was going to be ignored and that we were going to be at war in Iraq forevah.
Baud
I wish I had Current so I could watch Olbermann. On MSNBC he used to end his shows counting the number of days since “Mission Accomplished” that we were still in Iraq. I would have liked to see the last one of those.
burnspbesq
@SteveinSC:
Read it yourself, idjit.
Which part of “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” are you struggling to understand?
P.S. Your last comment is quite intellectually dishonest. You attempt to make this discussion about something other than this legislation, which you have apparently dreamed up out of nothing.
Sloegin
So how many mercenaries / trainers / advisers do we still have there after the “troops” leave? Anyone have a clue as to the count?
Hill Dweller
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff and republican, just essentially accused the republican party of sedition on Maddow’s show.
SteveinSC
@Baud: It’s much better than it was on MSNBC, because Keith can say whatever the fuck he wants. He had Jerry Nadler on tonight (misunderstanding the Defense Appropriations Bill that burnspbesq appears to understand better than the Congressman) and Robert Reich. Before that is Cenk Uygur. I had been watching Schultz, but there is way more on Keith’s show, apparently living in a different universe from burnspbesq. Oh wait burnspbesq knows more than Keith, ACLU, Robert Reich, and Jerry Nadler. Wow.
SteveinSC
@burnspbesq: See my comment above, sport.
askew
@Baud:
I wonder if Olbermann even covers this story. The PL seems determined to ignore any positive news out of the Obama administration. If they can’t ignore it, they spin it to give credit to OWS or some other PL approved group. It’s weird watching the media on the right and the left completely ignore this administration’s actions. At least Clinton had CNN to cover his accomplishments.
Baud
@SteveinSC: I don’t want to mislead you. I agree with burnsbesq on the NDAA. I just remember the “number of days since George W. Bush announced Mission Accomplished in Iraq” thing at the end of his show when it was on MSNBC, and I thought it would be nice to see the last one.
catclub
@Hill Dweller: Actually, decades. Not even counting all the crashed jets.
different-church-lady
@Gex: I agree that it can be all too much.
burnspbesq
@SteveinSC:
Not my fault that reading comprehension evades some people.
The language is above. Explain to me why it doesn’t say what I think it says. If you can’t, then STFU.
Baud
@askew: In the 1990s, I learned not to trust conservative media personalities. During the Bush years, I learned I couldn’t trust the mainstream media. Since Obama, I learned I really can’t take liberal media at face value. It’s frustrating not to have a source of information that you can count on.
dance around in your bones
Ok, I am skipping all comments because I have lost my license to kill time(seriously, I have no time to kill anymore!) but I just want to say that this stupid war that never needed to be fought in the first place is WELL OVER.
Thanks, Prez Obama. Seriously.
amk
@Major Mel Funkshun: klannity is right. If shrub hadn’t t started it, then obama couldn’t have ended it. So credit must, must go to dubya. Pretzel. Logic. Also. Too.
Cat Lady
The fact that Obama made it a point not to point out all the FAIL in Iraq makes him even more awesome than I already think he is. Is there any doubt that a Republican president would’ve trotted out every surrogate to trumpet the fact that Iran is now strengthened and all of the lies about WMD, and the missing pallets of money and the Halliburton contracts and on and on and on. If I were Obama, I’d ask someone, anyone, to tell me, like I’m five years old, to name one thing that benefits me from that clusterfuck.
SteveinSC
@burnspbesq: Try this sport: ‘A widely quoted ACLU mailing reads: “In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.” “‘
LowProfileinGA
@Unabogie: perfect!
LowProfileinGA
@Sloegin: do you?
amk
@John Cole: Indeedy, john, indeedy. Women could touch you for all the rouge they want.
SteveinSC
@burnspbesq: Forty (misinformed, according to that great Solon burnspbesq) Congressmen wrote a letter protesting: “The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.” Shall I keep on or have you decided to rejoin the reality-based, but vanishing element, of balloon-juice?
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: Talking about the current version as a quoted above or was it talking about prior and/or proposed language that is not part of the current bill? The section that Burnsie quoted was pretty clear cut. Do you have statutory language from the current bill that contradicts, weakens, otherwise alters Sec. 1032? If so, let’s see it. Please.
Also, I think it is a pretty crappy, and Constitutionally iffy, provision. It just doesn’t really say what you say it does.
SiubhanDuinne
@Hill Dweller:
Yeah, that was very good to see.
ruemara
@SteveinSC: I don’t know if you realize this, but it is altogether possible for him to understand what’s in the bill better than a congressman. It is very typical of them to get synopsis of bills. Often lawyers and legal analysts write them. It also, as you seem to be unwilling to consider, a case of politics. It may not suit his purposes to understand what is in the bill. And that is not because I feel anything about Jerry Nadler. It’s just seeing too many politicians up close and personal day in & day out has taught me way too much about the breed.
Baud
I have to go to bed. For those of you who still want to fight over the NDAA, the relevant language of the draft conference report bill starts here. (Warning, large PDF). Enjoy!
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: The article was datelined today, so it must refer to the current version as massaged to satisfy Obama. I think the worry is that as long as hostilities continue as defined by ? indefinite detention is a White House call. So don’t give this bullshit about what burnspbesq claims to have extracted from the bill that somehow obviates the concerns expressed by, well, the congress. I will note that the same delusional thinking on this site still believes Obama’s approval ratings have not continually sunk to the point they are below Jimmy Carter’s.
Hill Dweller
@SteveinSC: Those cowards in the Senate had the opportunity to take the entire section on detainees out the bill, but too many Dems joined the Republicans in voting to keep it in.
That said, I still don’t see why Obama dropped the veto threat, especially with virtually every one(CIA,FBI,DOJ, Pentagon, etc.) coming out against it. It also makes closing Gitmo more difficult.
amk
@SteveinSC:
So ?
wilfred
The Iraq war has been a catastrophe. Full stop. A better speech would be one to the country on the whole, acknowledging that the war was based on lies and the personal agendas of a boy emperor and his praetorian guard and to swear on the souls of the dead that it would never happen again. Nah.
Of course acknowledging that would mean explaining how, say, Hillary Clinton went from cheerleading the worst mistake in the history of the United States to becoming SOS.
And for the umpteenth time, Obama merely followed the end of the SOFA – even though he tried mightily to extend US military presence in Iraq past the deadline.
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC:
Not necessarily so. As far as the rest goes, the concerns you mention were not expressed by Congress. They were expressed by a Member of Congress who may or may not have been correct. Care to show some math on the approval rating thing? Don’t bother; Obama’s approval ratings really only matter to the extent that they are higher than those of the the GOP nominee (Caveats: third party, depressed vote, alien invasion, etc.).
Hill Dweller
@SteveinSC: Obama’s approval ratings are low, no doubt, but Carter’s were higher at this point in his Presidency due to a bump at the start of the Iranian hostage crisis. Obviously, said bump was short-lived.
gwangung
@SteveinSC:
The exact text of the bill was quoted.
Relying on quotes instead of analyzing actual language of the bill seems to me the very definition of “weak sauce.”
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: The latest word from no less than Sen. Levin on TV was the White House got them to remove the section excluding U.S. citizen which had been inserted in his committee, so our congressional scholar burnspbesq might wish to remove that section from his “dog-eared” copy of the bill to bring it up to date and withdraw his snide and wrong comments.
By the way amk in re “So ?” Carter fucking lost you cretin.
Hill Dweller
@wilfred: That SOFA was negotiated after Obama had started screaming about setting a leave-by date during campaign. The Bushies wanted to eliminate an Obama weapon and burnish Bush’s legacy by feigning closure before leaving office. I guarantee they thought it was purely symbolic, and there would be enough pressure exerted on the next President to stay.
Doesn’t anyone remember Obama visiting Iraq during the campaign, and the Republicans accusing him of undermining the Bush administration?
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: In which case you should have no trouble in finding the updated statutory language with that provision removed.
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: My that’s a good temporizing response. If I were to find it would you buy me a case of Old Bushmill’s?
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: Look, you are the one claiming that the statutory language posted by burnspbesq is outdated/incorrect. I am asking you to support that assertion. You either will or you won’t.
dogwood
There’s a thread on the FP set up perfectly to piss and moan about the Defense Appropriations Bill. If 2 or 3 people want to publicly argue about this there’s your soapbox. I’d prefer they just get a room, but that’s just me. Or better yet, let’s bring back the incredibly fascinating fist fight over the definition of “satire”.
wilfred
@Hill Dweller:
The NYT has a story about Haditha – a must read for the underlying sense of impunity that informed the war and American actions in the world. It includes this:
“That sense of American impunity ultimately poisoned any chance for American forces to remain in Iraq, because the Iraqis would not let them stay without being subject to Iraqi laws and courts, a condition the White House could not accept.”
Get it? Obama pushed for the military to stay; the Iraqis insisted they be held accountable for things like this:
“The documents — many marked secret — form part of the military’s internal investigation, and confirm much of what happened at Haditha, a Euphrates River town where Marines killed 24 Iraqis, including a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair, women and children, some just toddlers.”
Toddlers. Obama wanted immunity for any future events like that.
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: Try this and we’ll have an end to this episode of “Exquisite BJ Ostriches with Heads in Sand.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo And yes that is Sen. Carl Levin, but you and sport will just have to take my word.
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: Levin is speaking of Section 1031. Not Section 1032, the section cited by burnspbesq.
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: So what the fuck. Holy shit burnspbesq read the wrong fucking section. Now that’s funny. Made some good smoke-screen arguments and then ran away. I accept his apology in absentia.
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: No, dipshit. Section 1031 was removed. Section 1032 which states what burnsie said it did is still there. Link. I am done with this.
Strandedvandal
heh. Crickets…
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: You might be done with it but you are still wrong.
White Trash Liberal
Wilfred:
Speaking as someone attached to RCT-5 in the investigation of the Haditha massacre, there was no immunity. Take that for what it is worth.
That Guy
@SteveinSC:
You have been proven wrong. Shut the fuck up, and deal with it. You have not provided satisfactory evidence for anything, ANYTHING, you have said in this thread. Burnspbeq has given you all the evidence in the world to educate yourself with, but you still hold on to a lie because it validates your shithead world view. Fuck off, troll.
Mnemosyne
@SteveinSC:
Your “latest word” from Levin was posted two days ago, on December 12th, which was prior to the language being changed.
Admit you screwed up, and move on.
dmbeaster
SteveinSC, time to ignore this troll. The relevant language was quoted. Do the work to show the contrary language you are relying on, or else STFU. Without regard to the problems with the law as passed, it does not do what you claim.
dmbeaster
Glad the troops are shortly going to be gone. Obama did seek an extension to keep some troops there past the deadline, but the Iraqis basically said no (I believe they simply refused to extend immunity beyond the deadline for any troops that might stay, which they knew would result in US troops leaving).
Repugs have a weird way of both celebrating how great and successful the war was and how ungrateful the Iraqis are. I guess there is a point of view that can make those two views consistent, but it sure puts an odd spin on success.
AxelFoley
LOL @ SteveinSC
SteveinSC
@That Guy: The language is still in the Engrossed Bill (passed) from the Senate. The only part the Obots are hanging their fading hopes on is the section under who the MILITARY is Required to Hold (1032), not the government as a whole (1031). Or to quote dmbeaster “The relevant language was quoted” So now you do the work. We shall see who eats crow tomorrow, and I am planning poached Obot eggs.
amk
@SteveinSC: So ?
Omnes Omnibus
@SteveinSC: Please show me where Section 1031 is in the current bill.
That Guy
@SteveinSC:
I try not to give trolls more than one comment real comment a thread, but you do know that Section 1031 was cut out already, don’t you? You should. It was already mentioned twice in this thread with one of those which we know you read.
Try to hold more than one idea in your head. The more you do it, the better you get at it.
RalfW
I can’t remember which of the many blogs I was at today, maybe even this one?, that a commenter said he was watching Fox this afternoon and they covered this and said it was the White House spinning this as a promise kept.
This was not the evening opinion section of Fox ‘news’ this was from the newsdesk “journalism” day-part.
I’m unwilling to retrace all my steps, and much more unwilling to watch a bunch of Fox to see if this sort of meme repeats.
They really can’t stand that Obama did what the people want: end a wildly unpopular war. Apparently without horrible, Viet Nam collapsing sort of images.
Samara Morgan
@Sloegin:
its classified.
That means, Americans, ie the people that are paying for them, have no need to know.
But i think Muqtada and the Mahdi Army will be able to spot them pretty easily.
SteveinSC
@Omnes Omnibus: I can e-mail the pdf to Cole or anyone’s e-mail on the masthead but the pdf name is http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf and the title is
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Defense Au5
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’.
Note that 1031 is the overarching authority to detain anyone who is suspicious while 1032 tells who keeps the pernicious suspects…
…
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU19
THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author21
ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
23 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per427
† S 1867 ES
1 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
2 under the law of war.
3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
4 this section is any person as follows:
5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com6
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon8
sible for those attacks.
9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
15 forces.
… A bit later comes the part in which the U.S. detainees cannot be held by the MILITARY (doesn’t say can’t be held by some other gestapo branch.)
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require
11ment to detain a person in military custody under
12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
13 States.
14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require..
Samara Morgan
@wilfred: correction.
Obama wanted to rewrite the SOFA, and Maliki and Alawi refused. They would have liked to….but Muqtada made collusion with the invader/occupiers into a political death sentence….the beauty of democracy.
Have you considered that democracy promotion has only promoted islamic democracy in the ME?
I wonder if that was the plan….
RalfW
@Hill Dweller: Watching the re-broadcast of Wilkerson on Maddow.
Wow.
He nails the GOP over and over again. Clearly he is sick of the insanity.
Hope he finds the exit door asap.
Samara Morgan
@wilfred: Obama wasnt actually interested in atrocity immunity– he was trying to placate Our Saudi Friends.
The Sauds will now want to raise a rapid response force and get nukes to balance the emerging Shi’ia Crescent. Did you know that KSA doesnt recognize the Maliki government and has refused to open an embassy in Baghdad for the last seven years?
Scott P.
So you quote the language that disproves your claim.
That’s not how statutory construction works. Where is the positive authority for what you claim is there?
SteveinSC
@Scott P.: Look, it says at the beginning he can snag anyone he wants by military means and later, once snagged the military can’t keep them. Surely you can fucking read. Get the whole thing try not to read with your lips moving. It’s not that far from the top, so you won’t be exhausted when you get to it. Also the squids here were demanding the bill language, now you have it so STFU.
Samara Morgan
I thought it was a really good speech….a healing speech.
O threaded the needle.
What did you want Cole? A fucking mea culpa/tolejaso that would have made the troops feel like shit?
Like i said, all you whiny-ass-titty-babies can just man up and GOTV.
Or it WILL happen again….in Iran.
Frankensteinbeck
@SteveinSC:
And as you have been told repeatedly, that whole first part under 1031 about who can be snagged is no longer in the bill.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t think anyone reads anything anymore. Instead we all just find the first thing that rings true and latch onto that for dear life, then quote someone with higher status who’s just done the same thing in the news. It’s like the way fundies use the Bible.
Anoniminous
Hallelujah
Sasha
@John Cole:
At lease you can admit it, JC. The country is hostage to your former ideological associates who can’t.
That Guy
@FlipYrWhig:
While there are some knee-jerk reactionaries in our camp, we are not so beholden to the lie that we cannot eventually see the truth. John Cole has shown that he is capable of admitting when he is wrong, and he’s not very progressive-minded.
Samara Morgan
@FlipYrWhig: nah, its what Julian said.
its Social Network theory and Social Brain Hypothesis– Holy Science in action.
SteveinSC
@Frankensteinbeck: What the fuck do think that is? It’s the current bill Senate Engrossed (and noted as passed) from the Library of Congress. Note the part that says http://www.gpo.gov Any idea what that is? Go to the website and try to find one more current than this. There is no version listed that has section 1031 gone.
Samara Morgan
@That Guy: he still can’t man-up about Libya…i guess he did on the twiiter, but not here.
;)
Kane
After more than eight long contentiouse years, one would think such a story would deserve more space and attention than Christine O’Donnell endorsing Mitt. It truly is amazing at how quickly the media buried the story or ignored it altogether. It seems more focus was placed on the issue of whether ending the war was a good idea or not, as the media rolled out the neocons to lament the end of the occupation.
William Hurley
Yes and no.
Baghdad is still home to the largest physical US embassy compound and largest staff of “state” dpt employees.
There’s also the tens of thousands of PMC’s working at the employ of the Executive branch.
As is undeniably obvious given recent events, the US will be as active in Iraq next month as we are now. The events I’m referring to are those evidencing the Executive Branch’s unilateral (and no longer secret) war on Iran.
dogwood
@Kane:
Why shouldn’t the media ignore it? Liberal bloggers ignored it. I’m the emailer who “ripped into Cole” so he put up a BTW post. The thread was then hijacked by Steve and all his enablers, so it’s pretty obvious democrats who read political blogs don’t give a fuck either.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: bulshytt.
The Iraqis planted a boot in Americas ass.
NO BASES.
And the mercs an’ CIA operatives are pretty much hung out to dry….fair game.
If Muqtada and his boys find them, im pretty sure they still fall under the occupier/invader status.
Samara Morgan
@dogwood: good for you.
Did you liek Cole’s title?
I think “Welcome Home” would have been a better title.
dogwood
@Samara Morgan:
I think the title was pretty much a “fuck you” to me. That doesn’t really bother me. There are plenty of other FPers here who ignored it as well. I’m more concerned that the readers weren’t interested in taking the time to read or watch the speech or even chat about something that seemed to be the central concern in ’08.
“Welcome Home” would have been a great title, but as I said, you’d have to have read or watched the speech to come up with that one.
Snowwy
@SteveinSC:
You do not appear to know that http://www.gpo.gov is not the first place this stuff gets updated. Try the thomas.gov site (Library of Congress, and generally the quickest updates).
Samara Morgan
@dogwood: it was a great speech. Very Lincolnesque, a healing speech.
Its heartbreaking how those christofacist fucktards (the bushies) used our military.
Joseph Nobles
@Omnes Omnibus: In the conference report, Detainee Matters has moved back to 1021, I believe, or right around there.
William Hurley
@Samara Morgan:
Do you even know what it is you’re laboring to convey?
I think not.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: lol….it is truly a sisyphean endeavor to convey this to you and the juicitariat, but the world has changed– and the paradigm shift is social media.
WE LOST IN IRAQ.
just like we lost in Viet Nam and are losing in Afghanistan.
dogwood
@Samara Morgan:
Yeah, and the speech mattered to the troops; I guess that’s what really counts.
magurakurin
@Egg Berry: and they weren’t telling us to get GTFO in 2002, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10?
whatever.
NedPointsman
Not a single mention of the millions murdered by his precious troops, what a scumbag racist obama is.
Ian
@Baud:
He stopped those.
Ian
@SteveinSC:
Linky?link?link?
harlana
9 fucking years later
assholes would not listen to me and called me a traitor
seems like only yesterday
fuck them all
never forget
mmhm
zactly
Omnes Omnibus
@Joseph Nobles: Thank you. Section 1021 states:
IOW it specifically states that it does not alter prior law on the subject. FWIW I am not a fan, by any means, of the existing law on the subject; I just am not going to get wound up about a bill that explicitly does not change it.
Omnes Omnibus
@harlana: I got coward and “What the hell kind of soldier were you if you are against this?” thrown at me on top of that. Assholes are assholes.
Samara Morgan
@dogwood: yesss. and it matter to you and me i guess.
I predicted the drumbeat for war with Iran would start up this fall when the teabuggers failed to crash the economy with the debt ceiling debacle and the troops came home from Iraq.
I SAID i thought the christofascist conservative wing would combine with the fiscal fascists and try to get Israel to launch on Iran.
And it sure looks like i was right.
But if “sensitive” fuckers like John “America Interests” Cole dont stop eeyoring around and get out the damn vote they are gunna do it to us all over again.
And it wont be unless we do something about it.
Samara Morgan
@dogwood: Do you know how I know they will try again?
Because even sane liberals like aimai and anne laurie are western culture chauvinists. celtic dragon chick is a Hirsi Ali fan. even emily hauser, ‘middle east expert.’ They deplore the virtual babylonian captivity of muslimahs to EVUL SEXIST MUSLIM MALES and the ‘tyranny’ of Islam.
Its the same do-gooder fuckery that has gifted sub-saharan Africa with triple digit population growth.
And even sane liberals like Cole bought into the myth of ‘radical’ Islam and American interests.
agrippa
@Samara Morgan:
That post makes no sense at all.
I have come to the conclusion that you post stuff like that just to draw attention to yourself.
Samara Morgan
@agrippa: it makes sense to people above a certain IQ threshold. Islam is just the new cold war, and Iran is the next front.
Never mind that NOTHING America does is going to work….and indeed, nothing has worked.
70% of americans polled were against the building of the “terror” mosque, in a country where freedom of religion is part of the standing rule of law.
And people like Anne Laurie and Emily Hauser indirectly support that, because missionary democracy would be “better” for muslims….the idea that we can impose our culture, ethics and mores on a whole other radically dissimilar culture.
That might be true that missionary democracy would be better for minorities and women….. but it cant be done.
Because of freewill and the consent of the governed, motherfucker.
;)
Samara Morgan
@agrippa: makes no sense?
check this out motherfucker.
Even Huntsman will war with Iran.
William Hurley
@Samara Morgan:
The saddest aspect of your replies to me (here and elsewhere) is that we actually agree in principal about many issues.
You really don’t have a clue, do you? You’re so deeply immersed in your own waterless well that can’t even see when someone agrees with you but uses language that’s different from yours to convey the same insights.
The point of my initial post on this thread was to highlight the profound distortion of the conditions in Iraq, distortions affirmatively broadcast by Obama and his acolytes. So, let me clarify.
A) Finally, after a decade of wanton destruction of 2 nations, Iraq and US, the President is ending the uniformed military’s formal activities in Iraq.
B) The end of the uniformed services’ activities in Iraq is not only an undisputed good, it’s a change in policy that is nearly a decade overdue.
C) The above statements are comments on the current state of affairs, only. They are in no way meant to convey – directly or as insinuation – that this poster accepts any of the “arguments” put forth by elected officials, appointees and/or employees of government departments or agencies nor the “analyses” of think-tank denizens or any of the MSM’s talking heads regarding the legitimacy of the “first cause” fact of the invasion of Iraq.
Hopefully, those statements help clarify my position and your understanding of it.
Now, to pick-up where my initial post seems to have left unfilled gaps in my assessment that, unfortunately, conduced to misconstrued interpretations, let’s consider what is actually happening and some of the “whys”.
The end of the US military’s uniformed presence in Iraq is the result not of a policy goal or objective of the President or other Executive Branch officials. In fact, the President’s stated policy goals for Iraq had been to arrive at an agreement with the Maliki govt to extend the soon to expire SOFA beyond Dec 31 – a termination date negotiated by the Bush/Cheney Administration. Had Hillary’s staff, Panetta’s staff and Obama’s emissaries been able to reach an agreement with Maliki to extend the SOFA – as its written now – uniformed military personnel would remain in Iraq into what would be the 11th year of that “war”.
Negotiations with Maliki did not produce an agreement on changes to SOFA that the Obama White House found acceptable. Had Obama been willing to accept the SOFA modifications Iraq’s sovereign government demanded (e.g.: jurisdictional authority in criminal matters pertaining to uniformed personnel), there’s be no draw down. In fact, Maliki and his block in Iraq’s government were not explicitly driving toward an end of the US uniformed military’s presence in that nation. However, that is the outcome that was resulted when negotiations did not produce an unchanged continuity of SOFA as Obama demanded.
So, again to aid in clarity, I’m very happy to know that US “troops” will no longer find themselves in or preparing to deploy to Iraq. That said, the President’s depiction of these outcomes is wholly disingenuous as the outcomes – though more than good IMO – are in fact 180 degrees counter to the outcomes the President and his Executive Branch departments and agencies were striving to achieve.
That said, the end of the uniformed military’s occupation of Iraq in no way effects the presence of the much larger force – in terms of numbers of “troops” – of private military contractors (PMCs) who are in the employ of the Executive Branch and the CIA. We can also expect that, as history unambiguously instructs, the CIA, NSA, DIA and other spy agencies will remain in Iraq posing as members of the US’s largest “in nation” diplomatic corps or – as is their wont – as clandestine operatives. In the latter case, the “overlap” between our clandestine “intelligence” operations and those of PMCs will be in most cases – seamless.
The President’s policy goals regarding the presence of PMC and – by fact and insinuation – the presence of US intelligence operatives in Iraq is also public information. The President’s policy objectives regarding PMCs is succinctly expressed in the linked Stars & Stripes article. Obama’s goal is to achieve for the non-uniformed US military presence what he could not achieve for the uniformed US military presence. That is, he is actively working to ensure that non-uniformed PMCs enjoy immunity from Iraq’s sovereign laws as these contractors pursue their mission of [fill in the blank]. One such “mission” could be to continue and even accelerate drone flights over Iran. I’m sure you or others here can come up with your own examples.
In closing, let’s consider the fact of private, non-uniformed military contractors’ role as a buttress to the DoD’s and Executive’s policy “flexibility”. The fact of PMC’s presence in Iraq, now and from the outset of the invasion, is a crucial component of the history of the “war” in all of its “phases” – from the politics of the Bush/Cheney team’s agitation for invasion to the prosecution of the “war” and “peace” itself. Neglecting or overlooking the crucial, facilitating role PMCs play – and played – in all phases of the “war” is nothing less than historical revisionism and ideologically motivated apologia for shitty policies and actions.
The function of PMCs is, politically speaking, priceless. In the case of Iraq, the Bush/Cheney pugilists argued that the nation’s military commitment would not only be brief but “small” in number. Rumsfeld famously testified that the total US military force would number between 90k and 130k “troops” – by which he meant uniformed military personnel. Not only have the empirical facts history has recorded impeached Rumsfeld’s sadistic optimism, the forecasts provided in Congressional testimony by then Gen Shinseki (now VA Sect’y) illuminated Rummy’s as well as the Administration’s “estimates” as being nothing more than the faux optimism of war propagandists. For his part, Shinseki was fired. Still, one question remains. Was Shinseki himself correct when he estimated that ~400-500k “troops” were needed to “accomplish the mission”?
I suggest that he was not.
Again, the history of the Iraq invasion and occupation provides us with actionable, functional data. Among that data are troop levels at all intervals across the invasion/occupation timeline. In sum, it’s plainly obvious that the “troop” levels were insufficient to the mission’s objectives in all phases of the conflict. Even at the outset, the invasion was undertaken with ~250k US uniformed military personnel. 6 years into the maelstrom, the “surge” lifted uniformed troop levels to ~175k. It is also important, necessary in fact, to note that many thousands if not tens of thousands of uniformed military personnel served 2 or more tours of duty in Iraq – and that tour lengths were redefined by the Administrations and their DoD chiefs. The tour lengths of uniformed personnel were increased by 25-50% over the standard lengths that policy and past field/combat experience suggested was prudent. Adding salt to the wound, refit, retraining and rehab periods back in the US were substantially shortened for all uniformed military units – regardless of whether a unit’s operational standing was active duty, reserve or national guard.
Yet, despite all of these sacrifices made by uniformed personnel, changes to mission and changes to tour lengths and even individual service members’ ability to separate from service as the end of their own contracts – a “policy” known as “stop-loss” – there were no substantive calls for a draft by any of our political leaders (save Charlie Rangel’s brief faux agitation).
Given the stresses put on the military as an institution, the effects of those stresses on the institution’s ability to perform its function beyond the theaters of conflict and – most importantly – the duress endued by military members and their families, why was there no true call for a draft?
There are several reasons, but the one that tops my list (and the lists of many others) is the role and presence of PMCs. Again, the facts of the empirical realities of the Iraq experience are instructive. Various observers have estimated that the PMC to uniformed “troop” ratio average 1.25/1.5 : 1. In other words, when an “official” troop level was announced, the number broadcast was pure fiction by better than half! The importance of a “shadow” doubling of a force’s strength cannot be understated.
The contemporary dependence on PMCs has, since the mid-1970s, been built into the political and military assumptions that inform decision regarding the use of force and war-making. Politically, the use of force is made all that much easier when a given politician knows that s/he can draw from a vast pool of non-uniformed mercenaries as a complement to any uniformed force that the politician must vote to use, fund or arm. In this way, a means of evaluating and prosecuting war that’s profoundly different that our nation’s pre-Vietnam history, politicians can be assured that “troop” loses will be far smaller than one might expect because “troops” only account for ½ to 2/3rds of a deployed force. It is in this way, as well, that the formerly automatic consideration if not establishment of a draft – a politically “uncomfortable” conundrum – is wholly avoided. Furthermore, in service of military actions that are of “tactical” scale or pivot on covert/clandestine cover in scenarios where “engagement” prospects are high, the “off-the-shelf” availability of non-uniformed contractors facilitates political and bureaucratic risk taking that would be a non-starter were “regular” uniformed troops the only means to achieve an objective.
In sum, having now come full circle, the on-going negotiations being pursued by Obama with Iraq’s government to extend blanket immunity to US contracted mercenaries is nothing to celebrate. Such behaviors by the President impeach his credibility by exposing the stark contradictions between his ‘hopeful” rhetoric and his secretive behaviors as well as revealing his penchant to mischaracterize the rationales he offers the public for the actions he is taking or has already taken.
In the latter, “already taken” category you can put “war” with Iran. The rationale is forthcoming.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: but we dont agree.
on anything, i expect.
Obama is trying to slow/stop the non-linear system collapse of the American security state.
Call it “the end of empire” if you prefer.
He isnt trying to “extend blanket immunity to US contracted mercenaries” he is trying to keep KSA from buying nukes from the NORKS and mobilizing a standing army.
He is also trying hard to prevent Israel from launching on Iran.
Its all games theory.
the Nash equilibrium is broken.
and social media broke it.
Samara Morgan
or the Paks….i expect KSA could buy nuclear tech from the First Islamic State.
Don’t you?
William Hurley
@Samara Morgan:
It appears I’ve overestimated you.
Your wanton misunderstanding of the state of the American security state is troubling. I hope your views are the product of your own imagination and not the product of some “group” think – which would imply that others are practicing similarly absurd “analysis”.
You also demonstrate a woefully misinformed understanding of Iran’s internal politics and that nation’s concerns about energy and autonomy – concerns that pre-date Ahmadinejad and are front and center to large numbers of Iranians. On this matter, the actual facts pertain to Iran’s own estimates of it’s oil reserves’ viable remainders. Fearing a loss of autonomy, from Iraq (past tense) and other Sunni Gulf/ME nations as well as the US and Europe, Iran – prior to Ahmadinejad – undertook efforts to restart its nuclear engineering programs toward developing nuclear power as an alternative to its diminishing supply of oil.
Iranian leaders chose to go “nuclear” for several reasons, among them being that that nation posses uranium deposits that are estimated to be – at a minimum – of sufficient quantity to operate a wholesale shift from fossil to nuclear powered electrical generation and sustain it for decades. Depending on the actual richness of the deposits, Iran might become a net exporter of the material at some future date.
We can, if you feel the need, debate the intentions of Ahmadinejad. But I’m no mind reader and I’ll posit that you aren’t either. I will suggest that Bush’s now Obama’s unwavering bellicosity has had the effect of galvanizing important – though a numerical minority – of Iranians to embrace their current leader’s religious nationalism. Compare, if you will, such reactionary posturing to that of a more familiar cabal – the GOP.
In truth, the facts about Iran reveal a cornucopia of alternative and fruitful policy options that Bush and now Obama simply reject out-of-hand. Part of the rationale behind our Commanders-in-Chief posture toward Iran dovetail with the actual state of the US security state – in contradistinction to your “assessment”.
Lastly, you might well benefit from restraining yourself when using terms you don’t understand to characterize circumstances you misunderstand. Consider the following entreaty, this link, as an offer to find what is a common ground – a locale that lies beneath the piles of misused and misconstrued information you’ve filled your replies with. The link, a 10min snippet from Evgeny Morozov’s RSA talk on surveillance and “social networking”, is merely the first chapter in a veritable library of real-world analysis of the efficacy of social networks, the technologies that facilitate internet-based social networking and the exploitation of the technologies of social networking by state and non-state actors seeking to surveil and/or suppress non-traditional socialization pathways that conduce to extra-political activity.
If my tone seems harsh, understand that these are not trivial matters and that trivializing them – intentionally or accidentally – merits rebuke.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: dude, ive read the literature.
You have a a microcosm american-centric view.
Petraeus actually came out and said it in the 2008 election campaign– trusted networks << consanguineous networks. That is why he said COIN couldnt work in A-stan.
et, viola, he was right.
stop that bulshytt right now. Iran is evenly divided between the rural, ostentatiously pious, less educated, older shi’ia muslims and the urban, educated, younger, socially liberal shi’ia muslims.
Its exactly like America IPOF.
The only difference between America and Iran is that in Iran the difference is….the military is wholly composed of conservative muslims and the rule of law is shariah law.
Did you know green is the color of al-Islam?
Sully didnt.
;)
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley:
more bulshytt. Obama isnt operating in your tidy american-centric microcosm.
He and Panetta are majorly worried that Israel will launch on Iran while she can still drag the US into war.
We just arent that into her anymore, and she gets it.
Our regional client dictators are toppling to the Arab Spring, Turkey is Not Our Friend, and the Sauds are making noises about having their own nuclear arsenal and a standing army.
Did you know KSA still refuses to recognize the Maliki government?
Before you start eeyoring around about how Obama is Bush redux, take a look at the OTHER regional actors.
And its my own theory, except for the Petraeus part.
you’re welcome.
;)
/channelling sadie
William Hurley
@Samara Morgan:
Just as I suspected, and stated above, you’re not a mind-reader. You’re affirmative mischaracterization of my views not only testifies against your implied psychic abilities, but also add weight to another of my prior observations – that being that you’ve been stuck in your own “well” for so long that you can no longer imagine the true contours of the external world.
But please do continue to “read” the President’s mind. My guess is that that imaginary talent is the only company you keep.
PS – if you want to use your time productively, in service of shaving-off the course edges of your fanciful scenarios, contemplate the incongruities that exist where your “thoughts” on social networking meet your “thoughts” regarding Obama’s “11th Dimension” foreign policy maneuverings.
And do take a look at Morizov’s work. Here’s an interview that, if you choose to ignore it, will only cement you and your imagination to the mossy floor of your well.
Evgeny Morozov: The End of Cyber Utopia
Enjoy.
William Hurley
@Samara Morgan:
You know less than your insecurities telegraph you fear you do.
I refer you to Stephen Fry, recently channeled by Krugman, now channeled by me for you. While you’re there, scroll down and give Jaron Lanier’s quip on neo-technocracy a read.
sherparick
I think Atrios sums up the reasons for the war as well as anybody, with the addendum that most of those cheerleading for the war managed to stay very far away from it.
“Sort of, anyway.
After all these years I still have no idea what it was all about.
Even at the time conservatives would occasionally admit that the WMD rationale was horseshit. It was as if each had their own individual Great Game reason for it. There were as many reasons for the Iraq war as there were supporters of it.
I suppose, ultimately, it came down to blowing up brown people and pissing off liberals. So it was quite a success, really.”
Fezziwig
@burnspbesq: Marcy Wheeler had an interesting narrative about how one could use this to put Jamie Dimon in Gitmo.
You and others sure have an attachment to the letter and intent of law which folks like John Yoo can handily discard with a few billable hours, so you can understand if some of us in the disappearable classes might not look on these new regulations as such a win.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: its not fanciful, and im not a mind reader. Its Game Theory.
Obama is a machiavellian pragmatist. I can make the 4×4 player payoff matrix for every decision hes made.
Why would you think i’d read anything Krugman links? Krugman is just another “freed” market fucktard as far as im concerned. I’m not wasting my time reading fry or morozo, sorry, smells like recycled conservative crapology to me.
I suggest you read some Assange or some Galtman.
Your americancentric tunnel vision is blinding you to the reality of the global geo-political landscape.
Samara Morgan
@William Hurley: heres a thought for you. If OWS is an American “insurgency”, should we drone them?
Samara Morgan
oh of course.
Evgeny is F.A.T., fat.
srsly, read Assange for the counter to Morozov. Read Galtung for the alternative to Fry and Krugman.
Samara Morgan
morozov is a crank.
i guess that means Hurley is too.
Samara Morgan
@sherparick: nah, it was paranoia reflex.
that is the simplest and best explanation.
Post 911 Peaceful Democracy Theory and the Bush Doctrine rose to prominence among conservative quasi-intellectuals, as a way to prevent further attacks.
Little did the Bushies unnerstand that the “Freedom” Agenda was simply going to ensure continuous attacks FOREVAH.
All America has done over the last ten years in the ME is create a countably infinite supply of spare parts for the jihaadi factory.
tony
okay , they specifically said that the reason the veto was threatened was not the civil liberty issue, but whether the President can do this unilaterally.
The White House would not sign until they fixed that.
Now they can detain even American Citizens without charge or due process on the word of the C I C.
Now they have agreed to it.
Constitution , Bill of Rights, due process -DONE,
Gone.Period.
Also , too , BTW , Was it not GWB who signed the agreement to leave in 2011?
And then the current admin said “how ’bout we stay a while longer?” and the Iraqi [not Iraquian]people said “GTFO”.
right ?
“I could be wrong, – but I don’t think so…”
THE
@Samara Morgan:
I think I would definitely say the same thing about you: That your Islamocentric tunnel vision is blinding you to the emergent global geo-political landscape.
For instance: The way you keep pointing out that Muslims will be one quarter of the population by 2030 or w/e; while ignoring the contrary facts:
1. This is only a tiny increase on what they are now.
2. It is not population that counts in the geo-political landscape, but rather something more like net GDP.
You can see this in the fact that India, say, has 3.8 times the population of USA — But would anyone argue that India has 3.8 times the geopolitical influence of USA?
Another example: Japan has fewer people than Bangladesh. But would you argue that Bangladesh has more geopolitical influence than Japan?
So i don’t think population is what really counts in the geopolitical stakes. So its not what I worry about.
Samara Morgan
@THE: JAFI. :)
its distributed population, and AGE of population that counts.
Bangladesh doesnt have more influence NAOW.
Anglosaxon Christendom ruled the globe once– but the demographic singularity will eventually spell its doom.
America and Israel and the Euros and Brits– overreached.
olbos, khoros, hubris, ate.
THE
No I see no evidence of that in the data and you can resort to Ad Hom argument if you like.
Young population is a factor, but you should not exaggerated it. It’s a problem as well as an opportunity. You need a progressive rational culture too. Your young workers can easily become a desperate crisis of unemployment and wasted opportunity. The outlook for young unemployed in Egypt is light years away from young workers in China.
Also we are changing in many ways now: e.g. A world where dementia no longer exists, in a few decades, means age will be a very different trade-off of experience vs dependency.
But the truth is that I don’t care about your ethnic categories. They are YOUR obsession not mine. You obsess on this ethnic crap far more than I do.
I am perfectly happy to have an emerging Asian-dominated world. I deeply respect Chinese culture and I have great affection for India. Ever since teenage years, and certainly in my 20s, Asia was my spiritual home. I mean India, China.
I always detested the World-Abrahamic traditions, since I was 14!! — regarding them as ruthless, repressive cults. IMHO Only Greek science redeemed them, and you have lost the monopoly of that now.
It amazes me that after all these years you can so completely misunderstand me.
Samara Morgan
@THE: dude, im a universalist.
i do not give a shit.
go ax Aziz for an account at Superrational.
these cudlips arent interested in your arguments with me.
THE
I respect Aziz, Razib, but I have my own website thank you.
It absorbs 90% of my energy, apart from occasionally talking to you.