Greg Djerejian has useful commentary fueled by Josh Marshall’s observation that Dan Senor, former CPA spokesman, lately seems to be phoning it in from some alternate universe where nothing whatsoever has gone wrong in Iraq:
Given the horrific sectarian murders underway in many parts of Iraq, I found this glibness rather astounding and nausea-inducing. It is cheap in its gross insouciance, and disingenuous in its breezy optimism. And, of course, it’s simply inaccurate (read Zeyad’s recent account of the situation in Baghdad, for instance, to feel the fear and pain and anguish thinking Iraqis are grappling with at this so perilous juncture). Later, Senor breathlessly tells Colbert that he has “actually vacationed” in northern Iraq, and recounts how Suleimaniya is a swell town and that the “kids will love it” (even Colbert can’t keep the game face up for this one, and snickers a bit at the absurdity. After all, this is a bit like, during the Balkan wars, exclaiming that the islands of Brac and Hvar off the Dalmatian Coast are a great place for a dreamy Adriatic honeymoon, but shit, things in Zenica, Tuzla, Bihac, Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde and Sarajevo aren’t quite as grand).
To that I would only add that this phenomenon seems to bee too widespread to constitute a pedestrian psychopathology like denial. So many people representing the administration have clung so firmly to this alternate-unverse storyline that it begins to sound like a political strategy. And as far as strategies go it’s not necessarily a bad one.
Think of it this way – as it is people have basically two options for getting their information: the news, or the administration. The blogosphere basicaly digests info from those two sources and adds spin so I’m leaving that out for now. Here’s where the rightwing’s long-term strategy of discrediting the press as an information source starts to really pay off: sure the media says that ethnic strife in Iraq has spun badly out of control, but look who’s talking – The Media. Bush and Rush and Hannity say that those guys are biased so who are you going to trust?
Of course that basic distrust of the media doesn’t help as long as nobody offers anything in the way of an alternative storyline. But golly gosh, thanks to Dan Senor and practically every other Republican not named Chuck Hagel it looks like somebody is. Folks who have left the administration and let loose their discontent, of course, are easily dismissed as a Partisan Activist, Promoting a Book, Disgruntled Ex-Employee or Mentally Imbalanced. Think Jerry bremer or Paul Eaton.
Those years of anti-press rhetoric basically amounted to money in the bank in case The Right or its elected representatives faced a do-or-die need to sell a grossly counterfactual storyline. Well, it’s cash-out time. If you ask me how this will probably pan out I’d say that it won’t work out as well as they hope, because I don’t think that most Republicans have truly internalized the idea that The Media constitutes an organized entity that’s out to get them. I think that a good fraction of the 35% or so who remain in the president’s camp have internalized the idea to the nth degree (that seems almost like a tautology) but I would say that the remainder has the good sense not to buy into that sort of simplistic victim fantasy.
It would be silly to play Nostradamus and say things have gone irretrievably to hell. We don’t know what will happen, but we do know what is happening today and we know that it has very little to do with the storyline that administration representatives like Senor and Rumsfeld are trying to sell. You have to conclude that these people have either decided on the strategy that I’ve described, or else they have a deafness to current events that should disqualify them from leadership. Neither option seems particularly encouraging.
***Update***
More via Carpetbagger. One of the dangers of cashing all of your lying-liberal-media chips at once is that the press will get pissed off at you (after breaking their back trying to accomodate you, of course) and then go after your bullshit for real.
This sort of pathological blame-shifting seems to have become a trend. When their nutball initiatives get shut down by GOP-appointed courts, Republicans go apeshit against the judges. Indicted Republicans always bring out cries of a partiasn witch-hunt no matter how crooked the accused might actually be.
Here’s a thought. If you don’t want the press to spread the bad news about the war, don’t fuck up Iraq. If you don’t want judges to shoot your initiatives down, don’t pass blatantly unconstitional legislation. If you don’t want some DA to come after you with both barrels then don’t base your entire career on graft and sleaze. We all know people who keep making excuses for every shitty turn their life takes. You don’t hang around them because eventually some random thing will go wrong and it’ll be your turn to take the blame. Those of us who don’t put up with it in our friends should expect better from our elected leaders.
Steve
I agree, this recent trend of distorting the facts on the ground is highly troubling.
Thomas
“I think that a good fraction of the 35% or so who remain in the president’s camp have internalized the idea to the nth degree (that seems almost like a tautology) but I would say that the remainder has the good sense not to buy into that sort of simplistic victim fantasy.”
Well, there’s always going to be the perpetually-astounded like Djerejian to go after. When I think of what it would take to astound me after the past six years, replace ‘cheap’ and ‘glib’ with ‘s/m leather parties’ and ‘brainwashed sleeper agents of the Chinese’.
Stormy70
I’ll send you guys some ashes and sackclothes for you to don, so you can keep up your doom and gloom outlook in style.
I don’t trust the drunk media hanging out in the Baghdad hotels and typing up reports based on stringers, who may or may not be cozy with the insurgents. I would rather hear from soldiers out walking the streets, than the rantings of reporters who never leave Baghdad. Somehow, Laura Ingraham was able to go all over the place and report on all kinds of things. I did enjoy the defensive posture of media this week, it was telling how they had to rationalize their pathetic coverage. Iraq is the size of California, but nothing newsworthy happens anywhere else in the country to justify reporters leaving Baghdad? I am not going to buy that for a dollar. Their coverage sucks.
Bob In Pacifica
Love. Love is the answer. Give it a chance, sir.
stickler
But if you were a betting man, I’d suggest putting your money on that outcome. You’re likely to make a pile of cash.
Stormy, I recall a couple of reporters named Jill Caroll and Bob Woodruff. They weren’t ‘drunk’ in their hotel rooms. They got out there and tried to get the story.
What’s up with them, lately?
Thomas
Stormy I’m with you. Bullshit all the way. But fuck lost puppies, Mosque pot-lucks, and the nice bake sale the Baghdad PTA had before its President was assassinated. It’s small-town, too corny. Let’s go to the American strength. We need to find an Iraqi Britney, an Iraqi Tom Cruise, an Iraqi Brad and Jen, and let them loose on this so-called civil war. It’ll be great.
Barbar
Reporters don’t report good news because they’re too scared of going outside and getting killed while they’re looking for that good news. Don’t you understand how the liberal cowardice of the press corps creates a bias against good news?
DougJ
I see you’ve joined the spoofers. That’s good work — slip something totally preposterous into an otherwise believable right-wing rant.
StupidityRules
Stormy, if we collect enough money for a one month trip to Iraq would you agree to go? You could then tour the countryside and report on all the schools being built. Sadly I guess we probably won’t be able to collect enough to give you a military escort. But I hope that won’t stop you from visiting the newly opened hospitals.
DougJ
I just watched that Senor clip over at the Comedy Central site. Can anyone really be that delusional?
scs
No, I don’t think that comparison is apt and is part of the internalized left wing spin. The Kurdish city mentioned is not some tiny island hideway, it is a major city in Iraq, and part of the mostly peaceful north. We’ve also got a mostly peaceful south leaving a Baghdad and surrounding towns with problems. I think that may be around 1/4 of the country. It will be difficult to judge the exact extent of the “problems”, as the problems for Western people going forth in the city will not be the same for the locals. It would be interesting to judge the death rate from the insurgency in Baghdad against the murder rate in places like Detroit.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
When the passenger planes coming into Detroit have to make corkscrew approaches, when the drive home from said airport is suicide unless accompanied by a heavily armed and armored convoy, your comparison may have merit.
scs
Okay to answer my own question – 615 * 5.7 comparable to 3505 deaths in Baghdad per year from the insurgency, or about 70 per week. Hmmm, might be close.
The Other Steve
Actually, wouldn’t surprise me. I just got a survey from Ken Mehlman asking what their priorities shoudl be.
It was mostly Democratic issues like energy, healthcare, protecting social security and so forth. I was surprised I didn’t see “Visualize Peace” or “Give Peace a Chance” on the cover.
Seriously, these guys are losing it. They’ve spun their way up and down so many times, they don’t know which way is which.
CaseyL
You unspeakable moron. Here’s what’s going on in Iraq:
I’d love to take you, Laura Ingraham, and every other worm-headed drivel-spouting fan of this war and this Administration – every Bushie still breathing, in other words – and drop the lot of you in Baghdad.
The Other Steve
So what are you saying?
We should move troops into Detroit to secure the population?
ppGaz
Well, Storm, so much for “welcome back.” Your post is a disgusting insult to the nearly 80 journalists who have been lost in the Iraq war, more than the entire 22 years of the Vietnam war.
Jesus. Do you ever stop to think before you post?
The Other Steve
This is a wonderful idea. I’ll pledge up $500 for the trip and Stormy.
Should be relatively easy, I would think. A plane ticket to Jordan, then hire a bus to take you to Baghdad. This way, you’ll get to see the whole countryside and report on it.
What do you got to lose? A expenses paid free vacation? That’s a great deal!
ppGaz
In case anybody missed it, this is the piece of shit that Stormy posted, and to which I responded above.
The Other Steve
Whose with me and will pledge $500 for the Stormy/scs getaway vacation?
CaseyL
I truly can’t afford $500. Give me a couple weeks and I can pony up $100.
DougJ
Actually, scs makes an interesting comparison there on the murder rate. Let’s not forget, though that there were something like 1200 people killed in a about a week or two in Baghdad in about two weeks around a month ago. So I think the murder rate in Baghdad is much, much higer than it ever was in Detroit, though the same order of magnitude — probably about 2 or three times as high.
scs
That’s part of the left wing spin. If I spoke Arabic and looked like an Iraqi and knew my way around, I’d go. Obviously it’s different for a Westerner wandering around than an Iraqi. To not acknowledge that is delusional.
ppGaz
I have to ask again, although I know it will be futile:
John and Tim, why do you permit people like Stormy, scs and Darrell to post here? Are ya THAT hard up for righty representation? Are people like that the best you can find?
Seriously. That piece of crap from Stormy is offensive.
You banned somebody for using the word c**t. Well, your teacher’s pet poster has earned that apellation — again — tonight.
CaseyL
Nonsense. You can get a dark spray-on tan, wear a burkha, and learn a few phrases like “I am female and therefore unworthy to speak in public.”
Or we can dress you up like a US soldier, because US soldiers are so beloved by Iraqis, right? because we liberated them, and all.
Stormy70
Laura was just there for 8 days, and managed to go alot of places with her military escort. Are you telling me the reporters could not do the same. Michael Yon reported freelance and Bill Roggio is a blogger who went to Iraq. Ralph Peters went to Iraq and managed to find stories outside of Baghdad. Journalists are targeted so the insurgents can get on the news, because the reporters who were injured received more coverage than the young man who was awarded the Medal of Honor in Iraq. Why are there no stories pushed on the networks about all the heroic things the troops are doing? Why are soldiers coming back with a whole different assessment than our illustrious MSM? Why don’t the reporters tell the whole story instead of getting all defensive about their subpar reporting? It is transparent that their coverage is one sided and one dimensional. Why should I trust a drunken Michael Ware over the soldiers in Iraq, who are not drinking their way around the hotel bars, and bitching about Bush’s War? I call that biased bullshit from a so-called reporter. And I don’t have to believe the MSM know the whole picture in a country the size of Iraq, because they can’t be bothered to assign more reporters than the few who can’t leave the Baghdad Hotel.
scs
No way. I’d stick out as much as the Northern Europeans walking around NYC who thought they looked sooo American because they were wearing jeans. People have a way of picking out the foreigners.
StupidityRules
Scs said:
Don’t worry we will give enough money to both you and Stormy so that you can both buy a burqa to wear. And they also give you a reason for being silent.
CaseyL
Aw, c’mon. You’d be with Stormy. Stormy’s not scared to go on a
drinking bingefact-finding tour of Iraq.scs
Again, lefties have to acknowledge reality here. Americans are beloved by about 80% of the population, and hated by about 20%. Iraq is fractured. You can’t keep painting it in broad strokes in order to try to twist the truth for political ends.
CaseyL
You are an amazing piece of work.
Steve
Digby agrees with Stormy on this:
The Other Steve
So? That’s a good thing. They won’t think you are a terrorist. They’ll immediately identify you as an American, and they’ll open up their homes and invite you in for dinner because they are so happy to have been liberated.
I don’t understand what all the excuses are about.
You let us know how much this is going to cost, and we’ll run a fundraiser for it. I’ve already pledged $500. We’ll have a bake sale for the rest.
scs
Did you ever hear of Shia Sunnis and Kurds Casey?
scs
Even liberated people can be greedy. They would kidnap me for the money they can make, not because they hate Americans.
scs
Okay, send it to me. I’ll send back a report.
The Other Steve
They are heroic just by being there.
And here we are, giving you the chance for an all expenses paid vacation in the Sunni Triangle, and you’re passing it up.
Stormy70
Those reporters who lost their life in Iraq were not sitting around the hotel in Baghdad, but out in the country. How many were Iraqi journalists? Why no coverage of the rest of the Iraqis who lose their lives for signing up to be policemen, yet still do not let the insurgents keep them from lining up again in the same place? Where is the indepth reporting about their bravery in trying to police their country?
Instead of answering these questions, some of you would rather attack me and offer to send me to Baghdad. This is a cute way of avoiding the topic of the one dimensional reporting that you should be questioning. Of course, that would mean you might have to put down the Bush is always bad glasses. I know that won’t happen here.
The Other Steve
That’s ok. You’ll have American Express Traveler’s Cheques, which are easily replacible at the Baghdad Bureau when you get there.
The Other Steve
What are you talking about? The Iraqi police are in the news daily.
Suicide car bomber hits Baghdad police HQ, 25 killed
Insurgents kill 3 Baghdad police officers
Five killed in mosque blast north of baghdad
Police find 30 bodies North of Baghdad
It’s no worse than the number of cops killed in Detroit. So if you’re willing to vacation to the Motor City, surely a bus ride from Jordanian border to Baghdad should be pleasant. What you say?
Stormy70
I see we are trying to extend the chickenhawk meme to now include anyone critizing the media’s coverage in Iraq. Sad that some are unable to address the argument, but instead try to make it personal. It still doesn’t change the fact that the media is doing a half-assed job in their coverage of Iraq. End of story. Good night.
Steve
It’s not really a chickenhawk comment. It would be more like if I sat here, at the safety of my desk, and said that the troops are doing a crappy job in Iraq and they really should be doing more to stop the insurgency. Wouldn’t you think I was an ass if I shot off my mouth like that?
The Other Steve
What? I’m not calling you names.
I’m giving you an opportunity to prove us all wrong. You’ve been saying for months now that Iraq is a very peaceful country, and everything is going swell.
I think it’d be cool to get some first hand reports, along with pictures of the smiling Iraqis greeting their American friends.
Come on, what do you say?
The Other Steve
Does the media really need to be there? I mean, you obviously see no value or worth in it. So I think they could safely just pack their bags and head home.
The offer will still be open tomorrow.
Now is your time, as citizen journalist, to show your mettle. Prove that those journalists are nothing but pansies afraid of meeting with the real people of Iraq and reporting the real story.
Hell, I think if a 15 year old kid from Florida can do it, surely you can. I have a lot of faith in you Stormy!
StupidityRules
On second thought, scs and stormy might be right about this being all the media’s fault by reporting about the attacks instead of the building of new schools.
Think back five years, after the attacks on 9/11, the media stopped reporting about the schools being built all over America and instead broadcasted nothing but the planes hitting the towers. If they had stayed with reporting about the schools being built there probably would never have been a war in Afghanistan or Iraq…
Bush obviously did all he could on 9/11 to try to force the media to continue reporting on the schools, he stayed at Booker Elementary School for more than a half hour, but sadly the media had already decided to report on the attacks rather than on the ending of ‘My Pet Goat’…
The Other Steve
Oops! Big mistake.
It turns out American Express doesn’t have a bureau in Baghdad. They do have one in Jordan and Damascus, though.
I guess you’ll just have to wear a money belt after all, scs.
The Other Steve
I think you may have a point.
I mean, as bad as 9/11 was, it’s really no worse than the building fires we see in Detroit every day. You never see the media reporting about Detroit like that. Only New York.
Clearly they must hate New York, and secretly hope that New York fails and falls back into the ocean.
They are. They’re always talking about the bad news. Thousands of people died, blah blah blah. Why not talk about all the people in New york who didn’t die that day? The brave men and women who went to work and school in buildings that were not hit by airplanes?
Clearly the media is culpable in this bias to report things that appear to be bad.
StupidityRules
Stormy70 uttered:
I’ve seen lots of coverage of long _unprotected_ lines of Iraqis being blown up while hoping to get a job. And while some of them might be lining up since they want to police their country it seems most of them do it cause it’s one of the few ways to get a decent salary in Iraq…
It’s either that, or this:
Ancient Purple
Here is the answer to your question Stormy:
Lara Logan of CBS news went on a tirade today on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” about how the media only covers the bad news. Here is the link to the video. And here is the transcript of some of what she said:
It’s rather hard to cover a “good news” story when the U.S. and Iraq are waving you off because your “good news” story could end up costing lives.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
But I am sure Stormy wouldn’t care if they got shot dead covering the story. Just another dead journalist in her eyes.
Move along. Nothing to see there.
Perry Como
Mmmm, juxtaposition.
Richard Bottoms
You know the Republicans are basically doomed in November? Iraq is disintegrating before our eyes and it’s all their fault and the boy president.
Add to that, our men and women dying so that Afghanistan will be free to execute Christian converts.
Mission Accomplished.
The Other Steve
That one royally pisses me off. Freedom of Religion is fundamental, in my opinion.
And the fucking wingnuts don’t seem to get that. They want to cram their religion down everybody elses throats, so much so that can’t seem to understand why we’re all outraged about this Afghanistan situation. Why as far as they’re concerned, they wonder why we can’t do the same thing here in America.
stickler
I see that things have, as usual, spun off into sidethreads.
But this crap from Stormy needs explication:
Stormy, m’dear, the question you aren’t asking here — but you should have asked when the media sprayed fecal matter on your TV screen — is, “who are those Iraqis?”
WHICH f***ing Iraqis signed up to be policemen? They braved IEDs and assassination and Halliburton incompetence. Why?
What’s the chance the answer to that question is found in their religious affiliation?
The police are Shiite. Now. And they have a couple hundred years worth of grudge to work off.
“Mission Accomplished!”
scs
Okay I will take another stab at this. People like Stormy and myself don’t not think that there are terrible things going on in Iraq. Of course we know there are. The important question is, what meaning does this violence have to the future of the country.
For instance, I have some cousins from Europe. They accidentally got off at the wrong exit into a poor urban area in the afternoon, otherwise known as slum, briefly, while travelling here, and basically expressed sincere thankfulness that night that they weren’t murdered that day. While it’s true that such areas DO have a very high murder rate, not EVERY body gets killed there, and their Euro media hypes big bad America and its high murder rate to the point where they cannot put it into perspective. And that is the question we need to keep in mind in Iraq. What is the proper perspective to keep this all in.
scs
Stickler, are you a Sunni Arab perchance?
Pooh
Ignoring the rather pointless arguments (yes, Stormy like booze, no scs does not like facts) I have a minor quibble in that I don’t think you can really hold someone to what they say on Colbert. I mean, my impression is that Senor is a full on Kool-aid drinker, but watching the Colbert Report bit, it seemed clear that he was trying to be ‘in on the joke’.
stickler
No, but you’re free to go over there and ask one yourself. See what answer you get; might be informative.
Actually, I’m just an average (Lutheran) joe with a Ph.D who knew something about history — and I thought, in mid-2002, that George W. Bush was about to plunge my country into a deep deep canyon of shit.
And, you know what? He did.
The Other Steve
That’s what we’ve been trying to do.
But you keep claiming Iraq isn’t any worse than Compton, and it’s actually really quite a nice vacation spot for the kids.
Now if we could just get y’all back down to earth we could have a reasonable discussion here. That was the point of my inviting you on the National Lampoon Iraqi Vacation.
The Other Steve
I suspect you are right.
EL
Unfortunately, I think the violence, and whether anything can stop it, is the most important thing to the future of the country. All the painted schools in Iraq won’t do much for Iraqi citizens if they can’t leave their homes because the streets are too dangerous. Or if many of them are dead.
An additional thought on the “blame the media for the Iraq news stories” – I have heard NPR pieces on Iraqi art, hospitals, and the economic boom in the Kurdish areas. Why do people seem not to remember such stories have been done?
I speculate it’s because the dramatic horrific stories tend to stick in the memory better.
Which is why your local news covers murders and car chases more than new schools.
brooksfoe
and their Euro media hypes big bad America and its high murder rate to the point where they cannot put it into perspective.
You mean, something like the way our media hyped the 9/11 attacks to the point where we couldn’t put it into perspective?
Let’s try this context: What’s going on now in Iraq is far, far, far worse, in terms of its impact on Iraqi society, than 9/11 was in terms of its impact on American society. With dozens or hundreds of Sunni men being tortured and killed every week by shadowy death squads, presumed to be Shiites from the Interior Ministry and/or Sadr Brigades, and Sunni insurgents killing Shiite policemen, soldiers, politicians, imams, teachers, and civil servants, and blowing up mosques, you’re looking at a society that is in the grip of terror. This is it. This is what it looks like. This is civil war. Do people still picnic? Yes, a bit, just as they did in Virginia during Bull Run. But it’s a civil war, and a bad one – a worse one than in the US, because the conflict is everywhere. Before the war, people may not have identified so strongly as Shiite or Sunni, but now, they have to, because only ethnically identified militias can give them any kind of security. Those who have mixed identity are in trouble, as they were in Bosnia; nobody will trust them.
What you have to understand about the media is that they are generally much more restrained and careful in their on-air descriptions of what’s going on than they would be in their private assessments. On air, you can only state what you know to be true and what can be confirmed by reliable sources. The media may go a little haywire when those sources start feeding them outlandish stories – hence the WMD frenzy, the Jessica Lynch rescue, and so forth. But generally, they are only giving you, on air, a small fraction of what they actually have heard about daily violence and civil war in Iraq, because they can’t confirm the rest. And the private assessment of almost all of them would be that Iraq is going to hell. What’s happening now is that after 18 months or more of keeping such private assessments to themselves, they are starting to voice them in self-defense, because conservatives are accusing them of being biased towards pessimism, when in fact they know they’ve been bending over backwards not to be pessimistic, to try to remain “evenhanded” towards the Administration’s ludicrous claim that things are getting better in Iraq.
EL
I agree. When I saw that episode of the Colbert Report, I thought it was dry humor from Senor.
stickler
And let’s not forget the potential worst-case scenario here. If things devolve into full-blown civil unrest over there, we may have to extricate over 150,000 US troops and God knows how many Iraqi sympathisers.
This may prove to be problematic (as in, a big percentage of the above might not come home).
But at least we tried, right?
EL
brooksfoe, I agree with just about everything you’ve said, but I think the news reports of violence are worse mainly because the situation is so much worse.
Steve
From where I sit, it is very clear that the media is largely intimidated by the administration and the right-wing noise machine and has been bending over backwards trying to find good news to report.
I understand that those who view it as Holy Writ that the media is rooting for us to lose in Iraq aren’t going to see it that way. Not a lot I can do about that, unfortunately.
RonB
If I have to see this BS argument again, it will be too soon.
Tequila
Let’s do the math. Detroit vs. Baghdad.
In the last 3 years, over 24k corpses delivered to the Baghdad morgue. Over 10k last year, all from violence.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187486,00.html
Pop of Baghdad = 5,772,000
Pop of Detroit = 900,198
Murders in Detroit (2005) = 374
Violent Deaths in Baghdad (2005) = >10,000
Murders/100,000 in Detroit = 41.55
Murders/100,000 in Baghdad = ~173.25
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187486,00.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad
Santa Claus
If you assholes hadn’t left the British Empire, none of this crap would be happening to you right now. The same goes, of course, for the Iraqis. Everyone should’ve stayed British, then a lot of the world’s problems would be solved. Many people made the mistake of seceding from the greatest empire in human history, though. Both Americans AND Iraqis made this mistake, so both sides are at fault.
On the other hand, politics aren’t my strong point. I just make toys for a living, and canvas for Republican and Tory candidates. In 2004, I used the toy lobby’s influence to persuade all toy-lovers of voting age to vote Repblican. As a result, 95% of America’s man-children to vote for Bush. I have yet to regret this decision, as I believe Bush may yet manage to sow the seeds of a mighty British resurgence. Scoff at me if you will, but stranger things have happened. The Mohammedan takeover of the Middle East in the early 7th century was mighty hard to predict, for example. So was the Turkish rout at the battle of Lepanto in 1571. So it’s hard to predict history, and all’s I can say with any certainty is that children will still want toys from me in the year 2500.
(Unless, of course, the Scientologists take over as the major world religion and abolish Christianity as paganism. But hopefully God would destroy the planet on that horrid day, and save us all from having to venerate Saint Tom Cruise…)
DougJ
Thanks, Tequila. I was too lazy to crunch the numbers.
DougJ
By my count, that leaves over at least 9826 people per 10,000 who aren’t murdered. Why doesn’t the media spend more time on those 9826 people?
Skip
Stormy: “I see we are trying to extend the chickenhawk meme to now include anyone critizing the media’s coverage in Iraq.”
I prefer to think that Stormy doesn’t really buy into what she is saying. Certainly the people she cites (Laura Ingrahm etc) cannot really believe what they are saying.
Rather they are positioning themselves for the aftermath, when blame will be affixed for a lost war and an empty treasury. At that point, Laura Ingrahm will claim the war wasn’t lost at all, but sabotaged by a weak-kneed democrats and an unpatriotic meda.
The fact that Goebbels perfected this technique doesn’t mean it is inneffective.
Proud nations never lose wars; their fifth columns alway give them away. Thinking this way lets well-meaning people like Stormy sleep better.
PS: The CNN lady has been in Iraq 2 years. Laura Ingrahm was there 8 days.
searp
I think the defenders of our intervention in Iraq have to ask themselves why they are losing public opinion. Is it because of the media? I’d say no.
Iraq is a loser politically because Americans were promised a short, low-cost war that would make us safer by removing Saddam and WMD. Whatever you may think of the war now, it is clearly not short or low cost. Instead, what we seem to have is an open-ended military intervention/occupation of a country that is seething with internal unrest, a la Bosnia. The media didn’t create this situation, we did, with specific responsibility assigned to the President, Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration.
Here is the point: the public did not and does not want to fight a long, costly, drawn-out war in the Middle East for vague politico-ideological goals. To the extent the reporting has influenced this, it is to show that to achieve these vague goals an open-ended financial and military commitment must continue into the indefinite future. This is not the fault of the media, and no reporting of “good news” contradicts this fundamental fact.
Stormy, etc. want to blame anyone except those directly responsible for this state of affairs, so they pick on the media in an essentially political act.
BumperStickerist
fwiw, Tequila’s statistics likely include “Bad Guys’ in the ‘Total killed by violence’.
Since “BadGuysKilledbyViolence (BGKbV) plus InnocentCivilliansKilledbyViolence (ICKbV) = Total Killed, I think it’s worth considering those variables.
I’m *guessing* that the presence of US military troops, snipers, Predators armed with HellFire missiles, Iraqi troops creates a higher proportion of BGKbV in the mix being sent to the morgue.
Also, the Detroit numbers are Murder-specific statistics, which – obviously – rules out a bunch of untimely deaths in Detroit due to a variety of causes.
So, your numbers are mis-crunched.
I think the statistics once adjusted would bear out the overall point that Baghdad is more dangerous than Detroit, but I would caution against putting too much faith in your result.
I think, at a minimum, we can agree that Juan Cole is unlikely to walk through vast areas of either burg.
ppGaz’s cit with regard to the Journalists without Borders article is also off. The article he linked to gives the causal reasons regarding the number of reporters killed in Iraq being higher than those during all of Vietnam.
If you go to the RwB website and look through the data, a couple of things stand out. One – in the list of the Vietnam reporters killed, there are no North Vietnamese/Vietcong reporters included among the names of those killed.
Based on media coverage we’re seeing, *some* of the reporters who were killed were reporting from the Al-Qaeda and/or Insurgent side of the battle or, at a minimum were reporting while detached from US troops while the troops were engaged in combat.
I would hope that we couldthat many, many more reporters would be dead were they moving around freely and associating a lot with the Vietcong during the Vietnam war.
The second thing that comes out from reading the site is that Iraq is a dangerous place for reporters, for the basic kidnap / IED reason. Though, many of those killed were for ‘kidnap for ransom’, which makes no difference to the reporter, but I’d be loathe to draw a conclusion about Iraq based on the ability of a gang of thugs to kidnap foreigners travelling outside of protection in the hopes of collecting money.
One thing that gets lost in this is that Iraq was even more dangerous for reporters during Saddam’s reign. The numbers come from an old RwB report, iirc. Whether or not that matters depends on whether Iraqi reporters killed in Iraq by the Iraq government makes a whit of difference. To me, it does.
The agreement reached by CNN with Saddam to not report certain topics is pragmatic by CNN, but would seem to defeat the goal of ‘journalism’. Also, it would seem to indicate *something* about Saddam’s Iraq wrt to reporting.
Overall, I think things in Iraq are going along ‘okay’, not great, not a disaster. I’d like to see the Press make more disclosure of any constraints on their reporting, whether imposed by the military or not. That provides some context. I don’t begrudge a reporter for reporting from their hotel. I just don’t want them to act as if they’re not reporting from only from their hotel.
I never expected this to be particularly quick or easy task or that the plan would be implemented without problems. So forgive me if I don’t get all panicky when the chicken-littlists of the left start commenting on the sky.
.
searp
BumperStickerist: You may not have expected it to be quick or easy, but the public did. What task are you talking about? Can you be specific? I think if you look at the AUMF you will see many references to Saddam and WMD, and very few to setting up a unitary, democratic client state.
Here are some facts: we have spent hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars in Iraq. We have lost thousands of Americans, both soldiers and civilians, and have tens of thousands more wounded. We do not know when we will be done, because nobody has even bothered to articulate the “done” criteria.
You don’t have to be panicky to think that the public deserves to know exactly what our war aims are, how they are to be achieved, and the probable cost.
Blue Neponset
Well, that makes one of you.
I remember hearing about the insurgency being in its “last throes” a while back. I also remember hearing before the war even started that we would be greeted as liberators and that the revenue from Iraqi oil exports would pay for a good portion of the cost of the war. Another thing I remember fairly well is a big “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner in the backdrop as the President told us that major combat operations in Iraq were over.
You were smart not to put so much stock into what Bush & Co. have said about Iraq. Most of us didn’t figure that out so quick.
ppGaz
No, it’s not. The post was in response to a claim by a drunk that we aren’t getting good information because the reporters in Iraq are all drunk and sitting around their hotels.
That is just objectively not true. There’s no evidence to support any version of that bullshit claim.
Version (seen in the blogs): Only “liberal” reporters have gone over there, and they are biased.
Truth: No evidence whatever to support the claim. And even if there were some germ of truth in it, which has not been shown, where are the “conservative” reporters? Why aren’t they over there risking their lives and telling the straight story?
Version: “The media” are deliberately painting a bleak picture in Iraq.
Truth: Anecdotal references to “happy things” that happen there do not outweight the devastatingly overwhelming evidence that the country is racked with violence, death, fear, and is teetering on civil war.
Version: Reporters are more interested in their own political biases than they are in getting the story.
Truth: 76 dead journalists in three years. A record unmatched in modern war history.
Version: Reporters who don’t toe the GOP line are drunks (Stormy’s post, numerous references to David Gregory, etc).
Truth: The only objectively known drunk around here is Stormy.
Version: Laura Ingraham has a different view. Therefore, she must be right.
Truth: No evidence to support the claim. Ingraham’s tale has the appearance of a cooked story, fed by military sources who are using her to disseminate that story. Her version of the story is overwhelmingly contradicted by other reporting.
Don’t sit here and resort to “proof by assertion” to advance a claim that the Iraq story is being painted by lazy, drunken reporters who are using proof by assertion to advance a false view.
In other words, don’t piss on our legs, and tell us it’s raining.
don surber
Substituting a parody of news shows for real news stories and then declaring Bush lives in an alternative universe takes some nerve. But then again the suggestion that Iraq was “better off” under Saddam (1 million killed over 25 years, not counting Iraq-Iran War casualties) requires a certain denial of reality
Bush made mistakes of commission. Far worse were the left’s errors of ommission, to insert a little Branch Rickey on this fine spring day
BumperStickerist
I’m heading out for a rest-of-the-day meeting in a couple of minutes – briefly:
Bush’s own remarks on Iraq in speeches from mid-’02 on are consistent in that the task will be difficult and take time.
If the conversation is going to turn into press critique and meta-arguments about the nature of the coverage and its role in public opinion, then I’m going to take a pass and leave Jeff Goldstein and Eric ALterman jot-and-tittle that argument.
I get no sense from the particular president (ba-dump-bump) that public opinion will affect his decisions regarding Iraq. That might be a terrifying prospect for some, but I think it’s the appropriate one. I’m not saying Bush won’t change his mind or listen to counsel regarding what’s happening in the field, I’m saying specifically that Bush won’t change his policy with Iraq because of the poll numbers.
He did the same thing during the ’04 campaign, btw. Bush was asked sometime in April/May whether there were plans to reduce troop committments in Sept/October to help with the polling and Bush said ‘no – the campaign was going to be run separately from the war effort even if that meant losing the campaign.’.
Obviously, since Rove told Bush that Diebold had assured the Rethuglicans of a win, that statement was moot. ~ cough ~
What I recall is a Dems making a slew of bad predictions over time, and I recall that, were the Dems at the helm, Saddam would still be in power and none of the information regarding Oil-for-Food, UN corruption, and the other factors that were supposedly keeping Hussein ‘in-his box’ would have come out.
The price tag, btw, is not what you think it is. Troops were deployed in Kuwait prior to Hussein opening up for inspections which were, per Blix, of dubious value.
Under the ‘Alt-History’ approach, a reality-based person would have to calculate the cost of 200,000 troops deployed in Kuwait for three years in support of 150-200 total UN inspectors in Iraq.
And hope that the presence of a large western military force in the region wouldn’t attract terrorist attacks similar to what happened in Lebanon, roadside IEDs, random mortar attacks, training accidents, et cetera, et cetera.
Or that the presence of those 200,000 troops in Kuwait for three years wouldn’t provoke attacks in the US or Great Britain.
There is, after all, a cost of doing nothing.
.
ppGaz
It seldom outweighs the cost of doing the wrong things.
ppGaz
Somebody shoot me.
George Bush is making a speech, and I am agreeing with him.
It’s his immigration-reform speech.
I give him his props. He is right, and he is making a helluva good argument.
Bob In Pacifica
The cost of doing wrong things is one or two trillion bucks right about now. And a bunch of lives, too.
scs
Okay Tequilla, using your linked article:
First of all, a few issues with your stats. You used a low crime year in Detroit. To get a little perspective, I say we stick to the highest crime year, which I provided. Also, this statistic of Detroit includes all of Detroit, not just the high crime areas. If we were to weed out the safe areas, and just stick to the ghettos, I’m sure the crime rate would be 2 or 3 times higher. Also, I say we compare the stats of violence in Baghdad just to include the deaths from the insurgency, not the regular murders. Plus, I don’t think there’s a way to figure out how accurate those figures are. Who is taking these pics? I highly doubt that last one that we had 200 dead a week in 2005. But even if we did- take the 10,000 – let’s take out the 3,000 dead that was standard before the war in 2002 to get 7,000 dead per year due to the insurgency.
Detroit – 615/1,000,000 = 62 per 100,000
Baghdad – 7000/ 5.7 mill = 122 per 100,000
So far double the rate. I’d bet if you take just the high crime areas of Detroit, and not the whole of Detroit, I stick to my thesis that the violence in Baghdad due to the insurgency is no more dangerous than hanging out in the ghettos of Detroit in a high crime year, even given the suspciously high figures used in that article.
Pb
Another data point or two for you. First, from Last Chance In Iraq:
Then, in the news today:
It seems that even the military estimates have caught up to everyone else’s estimates by now. Not good.
Blue Neponset
I can’t believe someone is arguing that Detroit is just as dangerous as Baghdad.
scs
Here’s some more data:
ppGaz
Have ya met the righties here?
They’re real, not even DougJ could invent these people.
Blue Neponset
SCS,
How safe would the ghettos of Detroit be if we sent all of the US troops currently stationed in Baghdad into Detroit to keep the peace?
EL
scs, would you like to address the reports that Iraqi morgue workers have been instructed not to report deaths accurately? Including the morgue director who had to flee the country?
Whatever your statistics for 2005, I’d bet 2006 tilts the numbers away from the Detroit analogy.
Faux News
DougJ, imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery. Especially from Vixen News aka Stormy. Perhaps Vixen News can go over there with her family and take an Iraqi Vacation outside the Green Zone and tell us all about it? If she lives to tell her story that is.
Stormy70
Lara Logan, now reporting from her balcony in Baghdad…Everything from here looks BAD! Has she been out to the rest of the country? Just checking.
Skip
don surber says: “the suggestion that Iraq was “better off” under Saddam (1 million killed over 25 years, not counting Iraq-Iran War casualties) requires a certain denial of reality.”
The very idea that such a questions is being raised should be scary enough. After all, we have mortgaged the treasury and lost our allies in this venture.
A such a cost, this should have been an unambiguous win.
But since we are paying so dearly for this, the overriding question must over whether WE are better off. And despite all the artfully employed resources of the bully pulpit and the tub-thumpers on talk radio, a solid majority of the American have woken up to the fact that we got the short end or it.
The only individual winners are the Shia clerics, and the Al Qaeda recruiters. The only nation-state winners are Iran and Israel. The former because its Shiite allies have more power, the latter because a former foe is in chaos.
I believe we are well past the point where a viable case can be made to the contrary. It is the warhawks, not the war, in the “last throes.”
The Other Steve
scs – So your joining the army now?
ppGaz
The Salvation Army, maybe.
All together now: “Onward, Christian soldiers …..”
Steve
Nonsense, Skip. It’s always worth spending a trillion dollars and losing thousands of American lives if we can make life in another country somewhat better. Doesn’t every right-thinking American agree with that?
Ancient Purple
She also said that she and other reporters have asked to cover the new schools and were told that every time they do that, the insurgents bomb the school/hospital/etc. and kill people.
But God forbid we do anything other than appease a drunk in Texas.
You are officially a parody of yourself, Stormy.
EL
Stormy, take a look at the Lara Logan interview at Crooks and Liars. For some reason, I can’t make the link work, but it’s at crooksandliars.com/2006/03/26.html#a7669.
Or read the article on this issue at Editor and Publisher.
That will answer the question of whether and why. Then we can talk more about it.
DougJ
You’re missing the point completely here, Don. The fact that Senor’s own proclamations about Iraq were indistinguishable from Colbert’s parody is the point here.
Don — you’re a newsman and from what I’ve seen you take pride in being reality-based. How can you not embarrassed by the likes of Dan Senor? I’m not asking you to say that the war was wrong, simply to admit that people who claim that everything is just “humming along” in Iraq are crazy. That’s all. I wouldn’t ask Darrell or scs or Stormy to do this because, well, I write all of their posts myself and I don’t like to talk to myself in public, but I hold you to a higher standard.
Pb
Stormy,
I just want to know if you are ignorant of how (a) false and (b) reprehensible that comment is, or if you–like Laura Ingraham–enjoy belittling the reporters who have died while covering the war in Iraq.
FYI:
John S.
Stormy, now pontificating from the comfort and safety of her home in American suburbia…Everything from here looks GREAT! Have you been to Iraq – AT ALL? Just checking.
Needless to say, your positing that Lara’s opinions from Baghdad are flawed while yours from the United States are accurate is complete and total bullshit.
DougJ
I’ll take the opinion of an ignorant big-haired Oklahoman who has never the left the country over that of an experienced reporter stationed in Iraq anyday. It’s a no brainer.
StupidityRules
Scs, if you want to scew the statistics a little bit more I guess there’s probably a street corner somewhere in central Detroit where there’s a lot of murders every year. Then you can compare that with all of Iraq.
—
BTW, why aren’t FOX News only reporting on the schools being repainted in Iraq? Those liberal reporters… Why won’t Bill O’Reilly go to Iraq to fight against the liberal media by reporting on all the good things happening there with all the new schools being built…
DougJ
I’ll bet that if you take a young man in Detroit who has been murdered and compare his life expectancy to that of an Iraqi who has not yet been murdered, the Iraqi will have a higher life expectancy.
EL
Snork! Good one, DougJ.
Caseyl
Damn, I really want to send The Wonder Twins to Iraq. Are we still raising money for that?
EL
I’ll kick in, but only if they agree to go. And as Reagan said – Trust, but verify.
Kirk Spencer
I’ve a personal peeve that slipped pretty much right by folk. Requiring a military escort directly conflicts with the statement that things are doing well. Lara and Ralph Peters both did it, and Stormy referenced the point way back upthread. Here, let me quote Stormy:
All of them – every single one of them – had a military escort whenever they left the green zone. They didn’t say, “Hey, I want to stop here and ask random people.” They didn’t rent a car or a cab and go out for several days with only an interpreter at their side. No, they told the military coordinator that they wanted to go somewhere (specific location or specific situation or a more general ‘see things’), and then that coordinator scheduled a patrol and transport to accompany the individual to that location. Or, according to Bill Roggio, sometimes they were told that there were some problems with that spot and they’d have to either choose something else or wait.
At the height of the crime-wave time of Detroit that Stormy’s speaking of – 1991 – reporters did not need a police escort to go out and get stories about the area. They went where they wanted/needed to go.
Again, if everywhere you went it was with an escort – not a translator but a security team – then that piece of evidence needs to be explicitly countered, or all is NOT “going well”, regardless of what else is reported. (I will note that there are other reasons for security escorts. Reporters in China used to and may still have them anytime they wanted to interview the general population.)
Oh by the way, in 1991 there were a LOT of stories about crime in Detroit from reporters in the area. To use that time and place as a baseline for reporting newsworthiness of crime and murder shoots the “they’re overstating it” side in the foot.
BumperStickerist
Oh well. The meeting was rescheduled as the client was out sick. It would have been useful for his admin assistant to have told me that when I called for directions and confirm.
There’s the ‘cost of the war’ and then then ‘NET cost of the war’.
JUST ONCE, I’d like for somebody who is opposed to the war understand the distinction. Remember, for a dollars to dollars, you would need to add the cost of 200,000 troops, stationed in Kuwait, for 3 years and compare it to the cost of the campaign.
For the soldiers killed/wounded, you’d need to at least acknowledge that 200,000 troops stationed in Kuwait would have sustained some casualities over the course of time.
And for the $500Billion/give or take plus the casualties – remember that cost is buying you around 200 United Nations inspectors in Iraq itself.
With Saddam still in charge.
You could argue that Saddam was never a threat at all and, as such, the US should not have sent troops over to Kuwait in the first place. In which case, you’d be wrong, but I would understand your point.
Pb – citing a reporter being killed due to tank fire on a balcony *during a battle* as being proof of anything going on at the moment in Iraq is a bit daft.
To my mind, it also calls into question the sense of the reporters who are covering a war from a hotel balcony in the first place.
A better cite to the danger reporters face in present day Baghdad is Michael Yon’s reporting which includes things like ‘When in a hotel, don’t stand in front of windows because you could be sniped.”
Make sure you mention that Yon’s a former special forces guy who picked up a gun while acting as a reporter. The wingnuts dig that crap. Saying that even Michael Yon is afeered for his safety in Baghdad will make your case.
Pb
Wonder Twin powers, activate! Form of: a Tyrannosaurus Rex! Shape of: a bucket of water!
Pb
BumperStickerist,
I agree. Fortunately, I didn’t do that, but way to miss the point there, buddy. Next time, I’ll try to chop it down to bumper sticker size for you.
don surber
Skip:
“overriding question must over whether WE are better off.”
Overriding answer is yes. This is a Global War on Terrorism. Saddam paid to terrorize Israel: $25K per suicide bomber
Libya gave up its WMD
Syria has slinked out of Lebanon
As for mortgaging our future, the No. 1 item in the federal budget is Health and Human Services, mainly Medicaid and Medicare (Social Security is self-funded with a surplus through 2016-2018 — estimated)
Is the War on Poverty worth the trillions we have spent?
By the way, federal revenues are up 10 percent since the tax cut went into effect so don’t drag that into it. The reason the Dow is back at 11 K and unemployment is below the Clinton-Years average is the tax cut
ppGaz
Uh, no, and the bloc of Americans who think so is approaching two thirds. They are right, and you are wrong.
No, but that’s just about the most inapt analogy I’ve ever seen on this blog, and that is saying a bunch.
I believe we’ll need to see your source on that.
DougJ
A whopping 2 percent year that is (if you what you say is even true). What an economic miracle!
Don, that wasn’t one of your more convincing posts. You’ve got to step it up — you’re carrying all the dead weight of Par R, Stormy, scs, and the rest. You need to put a little more effort in.
don surber
Oh and since you seem to be mesmerized by my occupation, this is what I posted over the weekend
donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/03/msm-seems-to-be-right-on-iraq.html
The entire post:
Sunday, March 26, 2006
MSM Seems To Be Right On Iraq
As I began blogging last year, I kept hearing complaints about the MSM not covering the war accurately. Arthur Chrenkoff got considerable praise for a series of good things happening in Iraq.
That was last year. As a supporter of the liberation of Iraq, I was pleased. And then not. His stories kept coming. But people kept being killed. This week, Laura Ingraham made an insipid accusation that the “Today” show was not covering Iraq adequately.
From a Knight Ridder report:
The hotel that houses the Knight Ridder bureau isn’t in the isolated Green Zone, where U.S. diplomats and Iraqi leaders are, but it’s heavily fortified with concrete blast walls we helped pay for, and it’s guarded by an international force of security agents, which we also help support. The hotel has twice been shaken by bombs, once so violently that most of the windows blew out.
Knight Ridder maintains security advisers, former British Royal Marine commandoes who are combat veterans. They’re heavily armed. They train the staff daily in security procedures and first aid.
Despite the danger, Nancy and her colleagues do venture out and do find inventive ways to talk with ordinary Iraqis. Nancy says, “When I go grocery shopping, I listen to people’s conversations. What are they talking about? And how has their conversation changed since the week before?” Several times, her careful listening has led to stories.
(End Knight Ridder)
Ingraham is doing what kings of yore did: blaming the messenger. The message sucks. Such is war. Blaming David Gregory changes none of the facts. Things are taking longer than expected.
I still support the war. I still support our troops. I am more optimistic about the outcome today than I am a year ago, because Iraqis finally are involved in their own governance. But I am not gonna let my fellow chairborne rangers diss Nancy and the rest of the frontline correspondents in Iraq.
DougJ
Okay, I see why they’re up ten percent — there was no cut in the Social Security tax which is nearly half of all tax revenues. That went up at the usual rate one would expect based on GDP growth — about 4 percent a year over 5 years, so about 22 percent (compound interest, bitches!). Throwing that in with essentially flat revenues for the regular income tax (which really comes to a 10 percent or so drop when you adjust for inflation) give you the “ten percent increase” of which Don speaks.
Nice try, Surber.
BumperStickerist
Actually, you did do that.
Or, put another way, why would you cite an incident in which a reporter was killed on a hotel balcony during a battle in any conversation that involves what reporters are doing from hotel balconies today?
don surber
Doug J:
Look it up
The economic miracle is that the economy did not nosedive after the Twin Towers collpased and Wall Street was shut down for a week.
The economic miracle is that the economy did not nosedive after an entire city was swallowed by the sea
The economic miracle is that the economy did not nosedive after gasoline prices soared in a manner far worse than the 1979 crisis which led to double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment
Keeping people employed and prosperous saved trillions that would have been needed on social programs (unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, etc)
neil
SCS, I think you pretty much defeated yourself with that comparison. The worst murder rate in any substantial population anytime in modern American history — in inner-city Detroit during the absolute worst period of that city’s lengthy economic decline — is barely within the same order of magnitude as everyday Baghdad today.
Of course, there’s a very good reason that Detroit is synonymous with ‘white flight’. In fact, if you expanded the examined population to include 5 million residents’ worth of suburbs, you’d probably only pick up a few dozen murders.
It also is worth pointing out that random mass-casualty events are more corrosive to a society than targeted murders are. In Detroit, you could avoid being murdered, generally, by not joining a gang. In Baghdad you can avoid being car bombed by staying at least 50 meters away from any cars. Not exactly the same thing, is it?
All this aside, it’s almost stunning that conservatives are so eager to disparage the United States just to make Bush look better by way of Iraq. It is a fact, and a proud fact, that America has never suffered the same kind of chaos and destruction that it has inflicted upon Iraq. Why would you want to lie about this just to make Bush’s folly look less foolish? Do you value Bush more than you value America?
DougJ
Good post on the blaming the media, Don. That’s why I take you seriously (I wasn’t being sarcastic about that) and hold you to a higher standard than the other righties here.
Blue Neponset
Net cost/benefit isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, but I don’t understand why you think:
1) We would need 200,000 troops in Kuwait when we only have 130,000 in Iraq right now?
2) Why we would need 200,000 troops in Kuwait period?
3) Why you think there would be a similar casualty rate among the troops garrisoning Kuwait and the troops fighting a war in IRaq?
4) Why 200 UN weapons inspectors would cost (in my best Dr. Evil imitation) 500 billion dollars?
5) Why keeping Saddam in check would be so much more expensive and require so many troops when Clinton did it for his entire administration for less money and with fewer troop?
I just don’t understand how you can argue that we would have spent essentially the same amount of money and sustained essentially the same number of casualties regardless of whether we had invaded Iraq. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
ppGaz
Hear, hear.
I’m a frequent Don-basher, but when he’s right, he’s right.
Good job, Don.
Now, back to the verbal destruction for sport: Economic miracle? That’s the United States, it is not the Bush Administration, and it is not attributable to his tax cuts. It’s attributable to the unfathomable middle class engine of cash and credit that has been running behind the curtains for quite a while now. I refrain from calling it a bubble …. yet. And I hope it isn’t. My proximate retirement is riding on that engine, or bubble.
Blue Neponset
Possibly, but do you attribute that to Bush’s tax cuts? For better or worse, I just don’t think the President has all that much control over what the economy does or doesn’t do.
Steve
Just for the record, I want to say that I do get this point, which was very well stated. We could quibble over various line-items, but I do think it’s a valid point.
StupidityRules
Skip said:
and don surber argued:
Hey, you forgot:
Hamas winning the Palestinian elections
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran hostage crisis fame, getting elected as president of Iran
The rise of fundamentalist muslims in Iraq
The growing unpopularity of the US in the middle east
And the inability for the US to deal with the real problems like North Korea
Broken
Stormy:
Lara Logan, now reporting from her balcony in Baghdad
Heh. Logan has reported from Iraq since 2003:
“She provided daily reports on the war in Iraq and was the only journalist from an American network in Baghdad when American troops invaded the city, reporting live from Firdos Square as the statue of Saddam fell.
Logan has reported extensively from the frontlines of Afghanistan and has followed the Green Berets as they search for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. ”
Contrast that to Ingraham, who was there for a whole eight days. With the 4th Infantry Division as escort.
Darrell
That is exactly what you did in your 11:22 am post. You cited a story of reporters killed and injured on a balcony during a battle, and now you deny that you did so.. How honest.. re-read your own post
ppGaz
What exactly is your point here, Darrell?
State it clearly, please.
SeesThroughIt
I’m saying that. He has had ample opportunity to listen to counsel–you know, things like, “We need more boots on the ground” and “we need decent equipment” etc. etc. etc.–but he shows an astounding ability to ignore anything that doesn’t fit his preconceived outlook. Thinking he’ll suddenly grasp the reality of things now is hoping against all odds and evidence.
Darrell
You know, I have no problem with admitting that the situation in Iraq looks uncertain. But when you lefties start blaming Bush for electing a fundamentatlist leader in Iraq or for Hamas getting elected in Palestine, you’re demonstrating how whacked you truly are.
“It’s all Bush’s fault!!” But you see yourself as balanced and intelligent, right?
SeesThroughIt
But they’re disparaging a city run by libruls, so it’s not a fully American city, don’t you know.
Pb
Darrell,
Do tell.
Yes…
No…
What the fuck is your problem?
RSA
I understand this distinction. How does raising this point without actually comparing real numbers help? I might equally well say, “War supporters talk about the net cost of the war without ever saying what it is.”
Andrew
Actually, it’s quite reasonable to blame Bush, in part, for the rise in Islamist power in the Middle East. Someone like Shibley Telhami (I forget exactly who and when) said that there are essentially two kinds of government currently possible in the Arab states: autocratic secular and Islamist populist. The drive to “democratize” the region has reduced the power of the secular strongmen, and so the power void has been filled by the only other choice: the Islamists. There is no secular, liberal class with political power in the Arab countries right now.
ppGaz
Just whose responsibility is it?
More correctly, what are the problems, and which of them, after five years, can we say that Bush is accountable for?
List them, please.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
Because it’s pretty clear that that’s the sort of thing Laura Ingraham was talking about in her comments, which is why it was reprehensible.
Because it doesn’t. Lara Logan wasn’t reporting from a hotel balcony, which is why it was false.
StupidityRules
The Senator said:
Well since Don Surber argued that
was because of the war on Terror(tm), then I can argue that Hamas being elected in Palestine has to do with the War on Terror(tm) too. And a fundementalist leader getting elected in Iraq. Just as I could argue that Bush probably wouldn’t have been re-elected in 2004 if it weren’t for 9/11.
The real reason for Syria leaving Lebanon was this btw.
The Other Steve
I’m sorry. Maybe we should have said “It’s all Clinton’s fault.” Then you would have agreed.
Oh yeah, that’s right. I forgot… you righties like to project your weaknesses onto others.
Darrell
Sure, you can make any simpleton argument you want, no matter how nonsensical. I suppose you could argue that after decades, it was just coincidence that the Syrian army pulled out and that Libya dropped its drawers on their WMD programs after we invaded Iraq.
And are you seriously arguing that Hamas was not enormously popular amongst Palestinians before Bush ever took office? Or that the oppressive mullahs in Iran would not put one of their own in office irregardless of US action?
StupidityRules
make that
Darrell
Newsflash – Syrians had been murdering political opponents in Lebanon for decades.. all the while occupying Lebanon with their army not budging an inch.
Just thought you might want to know
BumperStickerist
Iraq had a largish army before the US invaded.
?
Because we needed ~200,000 troops in Kuwait before Saddam let any UN inspectors in country.
I don’t think the casualty rate would be the same. There would be fewer casualties in the CoDN scenario if the troops stayed in Kuwait.
But I think it’s reasonable to think that either Iraqi forces, or Islamist radicals, or pissed off Muslims of some sort, would either attack a US garrison in Kuwait with suicide bombers, and/or there would be deaths from IEDs in Kuwait, and/or deaths due to training accidents.
Over the course of three years, there might be 900-1,200 US fatalities to date, maybe more, maybe less.
Because it took 200,000 troops in Kuwait before Saddam let the UN inspectors in.
And, with regard to the United Nations, at the time, given 4 years of preparation, Hans Blix told CNN that there was a great deal of logistical difficulty in deploying the initial inspection team which consisted of about 30 guys with gear.
By January/February ’03 there were about 125-150 UN inspectors in Iraq.
5
I disagree with the premise that Saddam was ‘kept in check’. There’s an ‘apres moi, le deluge’ aspect to the story of ‘Clinton and Terrorism’ which will come out. I think that history will eventually show that Clinton put too much faith in the United Nations in this area, especially with regard to Oil for Food.
I di think that Clinton had a legitimate faith in a Law Enforcement approach to combatting terrorism during the 90s though it’s fashionable to slag him for it among the right side of the blogosphere. That said, I think Bush’s approach is better suited for current events.
And, I’ll understand any fears among the Left that Bush’s approach might (or has) become a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to an America which is fast becoming an Orwellian dystopia, eventually one in which a guy in a wooden mask goes around and blows shit up.
I just don’t think it’ll come to that, unless Bob Shrum runs the next three Dem Presidential campaigns.
Then all bets are off.
I’d guesstimate that the ‘Cost of Doing Nothing’ would be about 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost of the War in Iraq and the casualties would be about 1/4 to 1/3rd.
I think that any discussion about how things are going in Iraq ought to include the memory that it took the imminent threat of massive force to get Saddam to comply (minimally) with UN resolutions.
And there’s no reason to think that the inspections would have been allowed to continue once the massive force was removed.
There’s also little reason to think that the United Nations inspections would have definitively answered any questions relating to either Saddam’s WMD program, components, and such.
The number of inspectors is part of the public record. What’s interesting is the amount of faith the World put into an initial deployment by the UN that could fit in 4 Toyota LandCruisers and eat lunch at McDonalds without causing a strain at the counter.
So, the CoDN would be ~ around ~ $400Billion, plus casualities, Saddam would still be in power, the Iraqi Army would still be constituted, and there would be United Nations oversight of the Oil for Food program.
So, what did you get for your money?
.
I recognize the notion that the US should have just really, really, really, really really, really, really, really really, really, really, really really, really, really, really been stern at the United Nations and that the United Nations would then really, really, really, really really, really, really, really really, really, really, really really, really, really, really crack down on Iraq and Saddam Hussein so nothing really should have been done at all, no troops deployed, no inspections, no worries, no cost.
I happen to disagree with that premise in its entirety
Darrell
Yes, Iran.. thanks for the correction. Again, on what basis do you blame Bush for having yet another radical leader put into power in Iran. It’s not like the mullahs haven’t been in charge since the early 1980’s.
“It’s all Bush’s fault!”(TM)
Faux News
When are Don Surber and Darrell going to demolish the Liberals in this thread with last year’s “War on Christmas”? It was a stunning defeat for the Saddam-Loving-Liberals. Yep, might as well kick ’em while they’re down.
Mission Accomplished!
(Flight Suit with bulging crotch optional)
ppGaz
So, I asked you to make the “correct” argument, according to you.
Silence.
You have no actual argument, do you?
Darrell
Here’s a thought. If you don’t want the press to spread the bad news about the war, don’t fuck up Iraq.
Here’s a thought. If you don’t want Iraq “fucked up” then offer constructive ideas on how to do it better, beyond “Bush lied people died”
Blue Neponset
Thanks for the response BumperStickerist
I think we should also remember that Saddam didn’t have any WMD when we were threatening him with massive force. If we had figured this out at the time we wouldn’t have supsequently need 200K troops in Kuwait to keep threatening Saddam over WMD he didn’t possess.
ppGaz
Well, the first thing you have to do is fire the stupid, incompetant lying assholes who are running the show now.
Do you need their names?
Can you offer any evidence that they “have a plan?”
According to Bush, a “future president” will have to figure out how to end the war.
That’s the plan according to your leader. What’s yours?
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Lebanese history is much more complex than you are making it. The movement to remove the occupation in Lebanon has been slowly building for 10 years. It is an ethnic battle, in which half the country still supports Syrian influence. And, the occupation isn’t over. The troops have gone, but the intelligence security forces remain.
The assassination was the key spark that set off a semi-revolution, that was countered by an equal number of Syrian supporters taking the streets the next week. We didn’t liberate Lebanon by being in Iraq.
Lybia has been trying to re-enter the international political world for years. WMD became THE news story after 9/11. So, Lybia and the West were both able to use the WMD angle to move forward. Lybia didn’t have any, they gave up ‘programs’ that were not productive.
Just like we can’t “Blame Bush” for everything that happens, he can’t be credited with every positive step that happens around the world.
ppGaz
That’s your “plan,” Darrell? Fuck things up and then leave it for another president to clean up?
StupidityRules
The Senator said:
Actually you could argue that fundamentalist leaders have been elected in both Iran and Iraq. And all due to the War of Terror(tm). It’s not just in America that you can use a foreign threat to get elected.
The president of Iran between 1997 and 2005, Mohammad Khatami, was regarded as Iran’s first reformist president. The fact that the US has threatened to attack Iran has nothing to do with the election of hardliner in 2005. Just as Americans didn’t vote for George Bush because of the War on Terror(tm). They just loved his taxcuts.
Go read up on Rafik Hariri, he wasn’t just yet another political opponent being murdered.
DougJ
Darell has a good point: historically, it has been blog commenters — not presidents and generals — who have found solutions to our most vexing military problems. I blame the people who comment here for the current problems on Iraq. If they would get off their couches, stop complaining about Bush, and start finding creative solutions to a problem that has stumped military experts, we could get Iraq back on quick in no time.
ppGaz — I blame you most of all. Surely you could have found a solution to our problems in Iraq if you put a little effort into it.
StupidityRules
A bit OT, but I think I finally know the true identity of “The Senator”.
Ben Domenech.
Andrew
Not only was Khatami a reformist, relations were thawing between the US and Iran up until someone said something about an Axis of Evil. The Iranians famously held solidarity vigils after 9/11, but as soon as Bush pronounced that we were on a crusade against Evil(tm) and invaded their neighbor, they had every reason to go hardline and, most importantly, accelerate their nuclear weapons program.
jaime
.
They were all kidnapped and beheaded and so was the host of Access Baghdad.
BumperStickerist
There’s a high level of gnosticism needed to believe that, prior to April/May ’03 ‘Hussein posed no WMD threat’ premise. Too high, imo.
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument doesn’t work for me either. That we didn’t find WMD, therefore Hussein didn’t have any relies on accepting a defense attorney’s concept of proof and adopting the legal system’s approach to the problem.
Given the relatively slow run-up to the war, you can’t rule out the possibility that component chemicals or munitions were destroyed or sent away.
At a minimun, Clinton’s point that ‘a lot of stuff was unaccounted for’ is true.
And, it’s worth noting that Bush gave Saddam every opportunity to get into compliance with UN regulations.
There was absolutely no mystery to what Bush was saying needed to be done to prevent an invasion and regime overthrow.
Any surprise that Bush followed through on his statements is more a testament to the feckless nature of the United Nations than Bush being a cowboy.
For starters, you couldn’t have figured this out absent the presence of 200,000 troops in Kuwait.
Your options at the time were to accept Hussein’s word on the matter at face value.
Or not.
I think ‘not’ was the better course of action at the time.
Skip
Darrell asks, “on what basis do you blame Bush for having yet another radical leader put into power in Iran/ ”
Well, Bush didn’t directly put Chavez in power in Venezuela either, but he has done a fine job of keeping him there—and spreading la causa throughout South America.
If Bush weren’t so diplomatically tone-deaf we might see a viable Iranian opposition. Ditto for South American.
I bear Bush no personal ill-will, but his presidency has been a serial train wreck.
Let me remind you that there was a candelight vigil for the victims of 9/11 in Iran. But fratboy pissed that all way and more. Now he can’t travel abroad without causing a huge demonstration. Hell, he only seldom ventures outside military bases in his own country. This is the face a “bold leader?” No, this the face of failure.
srv
A cluster-fuck is a cluster-fuck regardless of the draperies you choose to dress it in.
We can’t go from Plan “Stay-the-course” to any alternative with your hero. The first step in any corrective action is admitting you have a problem. Until they go to Foreign Policy Disasters Anonymous, we can’t help you fuckups help yourselves.
Zifnab
This appears to be the track record for the entire administration. Start a “War on Terror” that will never be finished in our lifetime. Rack up a $9 trillion debt that our grandchildren will be paying off when they’re in retirement homes. Build a social security system that funds brookerage houses today, but leaves future social security recipents to take care of themselves when they retire later on.
It’s almost as though Bush is booby-trapping the national government, so that when this crop of shill Republicans leave office it’ll take decades before we’re done cleaning up their mess – during which time the same shills who got ousted can complain about the soaring debts and rampant inefficencies that damn Democraticly controlled national government keeps watch over.
ImJohnGalt
By what stretch of anyone’s imagination is it likely that any ideas offered by the Democrats would be not only a) listened to by the Republicans, but also b) executed in an efficient manner not benefiting their politican contributors?
As loathe as I am to see further deaths and diminishing civil liberties in America, I’m not really sure how Democrats coming up with their solutions so far before the elections is going to help anything. When have the Republicans ever cared about what the Democrats thought? They’ve excluded them from meetings, prevented them from venues to run their own committees, tried to stifle debate at every opportunity, and yet somehow their supporters among the cheetocracy think its incumbent upon the Democrats to keep trying to work with them?
From my perspective, there is going to be a real ideological battle in the next two elections for the soul of the country. In my opinion it is in the long-term interests of the country for the Democrats to be formulating their policies now, but introduce them only when its too late for either a) the Republicans to co-opt them, or b) for them to execute them poorly and attempt to prove they were bad ideas in the first place.
SeesThroughIt
Fucking awesome.
Though my plan, “Why don’t we pursue OBL and his associates wholeheartedly rather than getting into a total clusterfuck in Iraq,” still looks a lot better than Bush’s “Let’s get into a clusterfuck in Iraq, then let some future president have to clean up my awful mess.” Where’s my cushy government consulting position?
Darrell
Regarded by whom? The gullible and ignorant left? Tell us what ‘reforms’ were enacted under Khatami’s leadership. Improvement in women’s rights? Democratic reforms? Newspapers shut down in record numbers?
Until you can honestly acknowledge that the mullahs’ have been in control of Iraq for a long time, there’s really no point in having a discussion if you can’t admit that fact
srv
Y’all are wasting your breath. Darrell will never admit that any Republican Foreign Policy has any negative consequences. It cannot happen. The Axis-of-Evil speech did not have any impact whatsover on North Korean or Iranian policies. What Bush says really doesn’t make any difference anywhere unless it makes a good Republican talking point.
ImJohnGalt
Heh. Cheetocracy. I like that. Hope it catches on.
ppGaz
I’m sorry …
So sorry …
Please accept my apolo-gee
(Connie Francis).
Darrell
Of course Bush is to blame for keeping Chavez in power. Chavez stole the last election.. that, after driving many of the upper and middle class out of the country. But that’s all Bush’s fault, right whackjobs?
Laura
Apologies if this has already been posted, but Andrew Sullivan posted part of an interview today with Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, and founding member of Delta Force, the U.S.’s crack counter-terrorist unit. Here’s the full interview and it’s well worth reading. It’s vulgar that someone who spends 8 measley days in Iraq, or every day at their computer chatting on a blog, would even attempt to rip into journalists who have risked their lives for months and sometimes years to report from Iraq. I’m curious to see the responses from Stormy and friends about Haney after they’ve read his opinion of the Iraq war and Bush.
Blue Neponset
No I can’t rule those scenarios out, but that isn’t evidence that those things happened. I also can’t rule out the possibility that an angry gnome named Jimmy stole all of those components and/or munitions and moved them to Martha’s Vineyard, either. That doesn’t mean it happened.
Possibly, but that has no bearing on whether or not those same 200K troops would still be in Kuwait today.
Your options at the time were to accept Hussein’s word on the matter at face value.
gratefulcub
Not that it matters, but he was fighting the mullahs on most of these fronts, to the extent that he could fight and stay alive. The presidency doesn’t have much power, that is why nothing seemed to improve.
srv
Or c) that anything the Dems came up with would make any difference whatsoever?
To copy a phrase, “It’s the policy stupid”. “Reforming” the ME into our image by force isn’t going to work. Period. Gov’t (Republican or Democrat) can no longer affect real change in the US, let alone in the world.
gratefulcub
Do we still have satellites?
Otto Man
Take a look at this, Stormy:
I’m sure she’s just a lying treasonous bastard, though.
In all seriousness, I’ll gladly chip in $100 to the Stormy To Baghdad Fund if you’ll go over therer and show us all what a wuss those reporters are. If they’re lying — and the government too, from what Logan says — then it must be safe as a preschool over there.
Go.
ppGaz
Oh oh. That sounds perilously close to the Tall Dave Doctrine: America Cannot Govern Itself.
According to TD, voters just don’t vote right, that’s the problem.
Is the American Experiment dead? Is that to be the legacy of Balloon-Juice?
Americans can’t get anything right because they don’t have the sense to realize that government is always right and the media is always wrong.
That appears to be the summation of the right’s position here today.
ppGaz
Count me in for $100 also. I think Stormy should have the opportunity go to Iraq and come back with the straight story.
gratefulcub
We can’t rule out the possibility that we got a fake Saddam Hussein, and the real one is leading the insurgency, so let’s pretend that is true too.
Blue Neponset
Oops…
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. The whole Iraqi WMD discussion didn’t boil down accepting “Hussein’s word on the matter at face value or not”. You are the first person I have come accross who has thought so.
ppGaz
That would be great. Then we can find him and arrest him all over again, thereby giving us a chance to do another “We got him” press conference!
I think that’s what’s missing. A clear win for our side every six months or so.
BumperStickerist
How many months do you think it would take for, maybe, 200-300 people to go through Iraq and prove that Iraq had no WMDs? Once you come up with a number, that’s how many months you’d need to keep troops in Kuwait.
If you want to add additional UN inspectors to the mix, make it a 1,000 or more, go right ahead. Just make sure they’re qualified and capable.
As for the ‘Gnome Named Jimmy, Martha’s Vineyard’ scenario, ummmmmmmm – okay. I’d probably look over at Syria.
But you bring up a good point, the question raised by the UN Resolution isn’t whether the US can prove that Saddam has WMD, the issue raised was that Saddam had to prove that he did not have WMDs.
Broken
NTodd’s list of Iraqi death toll over the first days of March and what the American equivalents would be after adjusting for our larger population:
52 = 595
35 = 400
47 = 538
16 = 183
15 = 172
26 = 297
23 = 263
49 = 561
21 = 240
29 = 332
7 = 80
97 = 1110
21 = 240
68 = 778
19 = 217
48 = 550
6 = 69
In 17 days 579 Iraqi people were killed. Proportionally that’s about 6625 Americans, or roughly two 9/11s. If we were experiencing two 9/11-level attacks in a month, wouldn’t you say there was a war going on? And if it were Americans committing these acts against other Americans, wouldn’t you say that’s a civil war?
Darrell
Translation: The left has nothing but “Bush lied people died!” No ideas, no solutions, just bitterness and hatred.. don’t forget most Dems voted for authorization to go into Iraq
srv
ppGaz, Corporations are the drivers of change, and gov’t is the rubber stamp. If abstract foreign policies concepts like “freedom for everyone” mattered to them, something would get done.
And TD is right about the voting part. But it’s not anything Diebold can’t fix.
gratefulcub
How do you prove you don’t have something?
We could have forced inspections for a lower price in dollars and bodies than fighting this war. But, that isn’t the point.
What is the nightmare scenario of 100,000 troops in Kuwait and 1,000 inspectors for 3 years? A bunch of money spent.
Nightmare scenario of war? Destabilization of the entire region, bringing Iran, Syria, and Turkey into a hot war being fought be several factions, including a Kurdistan that covers parts of 4 countries fighting for independence. Oil at $200 a barrel, resulting in a worldwide depression.
I don’t like to gamble. I don’t like the idea of staking the world’s future on the gamble that the 1% chance of the nightmare scenario won’t happen.
ppGaz
Ya gotta love the Republicans, they “have a plan” for just about everything!
Clearly they are smarter than we are.
ImJohnGalt
While the schadenfreud might be delicious, I really do quite frankly believe that Stormy going over to Iraq to wander around without military escort would be tantamount to wishing her dead (or at least a good 80-90% chance thereof). I can’t in good conscience support that.
That she might believe that to be possible is on her, and as Broken’s post above indicates, it reflects pretty poorly on her observational ability. That said, I have no desire to see any more deaths of either Iraqi civilians, American civilians, or American, British, or coalition troops – this includes stormy, scs, or any of the other cheetocrats.
ppGaz
ppGaz’ oil stocks go stratospheric, and he retires early and buys a boat bigger than Tiger Woods’ yacht!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyoooooo Dogies!
I KNEW those Republicans were going to get it all in my favor!!
ppGaz
Me either. I think she should stay in the hotel bar, and drink with the rest of them. I want her safe while she is there.
Mike S
I see things haven’t changed around here. Darrell’s still using the same talking points while blindly supporting an incompatent party embroiled in corruption.
Can’t szy I missed this place.
Skip
Darrell: ” Chavez stole the last election..that’s all Bush’s fault, right whackjobs?”
He sure makes it easier, whether for Chavez or the guy in Iran, as any poll in nearly any part of the world would tell you (vide Pew). But of course, in Darrell/ Scalia world, bona fides in the rest of the rest of the world don’t matter. We go it alone, and send the bill to our grandchildren. Remove bad guys, at a trillion a pop.
When the Brit statesman John Bright said, “It is not my duty to make my country the knight-errant of the world” that was a REAL conservative talking.
BumperStickerist
Having established my credentials as one who does not read
the RNC talking points, ultimately the issue about invasion did come down to accepting Hussein’s word on the issue.
Saddam said he didn’t.
The UN, for its part, did not verify that Hussein had no WMDs.
Bush, for his part, was crystal clear going back to public speeches in June ’02 about what needed to happen in Iraq to prevent the US from overthrowing Hussein.
Hussein, for his part, appears to have been surprised that Bush was serious.
Anderson
Cole: We all know people who keep making excuses for every shitty turn their life takes. You don’t hang around them because eventually some random thing will go wrong and it’ll be your turn to take the blame. Those of us who don’t put up with it in our friends should expect better from our elected leaders.
Can we infer from this Cole’s attitude towards Ben “Augustine” Domenech’s recent exercises in excuse-making?
ImJohnGalt
Uh Darrell, you really do need to get a new “reasoned argument” to “rightwing fanatic” dictionary.
That’s not what I said at all, by any stretch of the imagination (except, apparently, for yours). To effect real change in our policies, Democrats are going to need to win elections. In doing so, they need to come up with a strategy for doing so. To me, an appropriate strategy would be to withhold their platform until such time as it is politically advantageous to share it with the American voters. Otherwise, their platform will have no opportunity to actually be implemented due to the reasons enumerated in my original post.
You are free to disagree with what I wrote and indicate why you think it is a poor strategy, but please don’t attribute to to me that which I did not write.
Pb
gratefulcub,
No, it’s a very salient point.
Well we’ve already done *that*–sign me up!
This *is* the nightmare scenario–it is already far worse than every ‘projection’ the White House ever came up with.
Instead, we ended up with the far greater probability that this administration would mess it up to the point where we have a nightmare scenario on our hands anyhow. And really, if we actually had to fight anyone to avert a ‘nightmare scenario’, it certainly wasn’t Iraq, as everyone should know by now.
gratefulcub
As countless people said at the time, SH will act like he has them because he has a feckless military as he sits beside Iran, in a region with Israel…….and he is a pompous arrogant ass that likes to talk big. It wasn’t a big shock to many that he may have been lying for years.
But again, how does anyone prove a negative? We could have scoured the desert for years, and been somewhat certain that he didn’t have some large program that was dangerous to us.
As I posted above, what was the big downside to forced inspections for years?
Darrell
Oh that’s such a difficult, impossible task.. Let me throw out a suggestion – He could have destroyed the weapons in the presence of UN inspectors instead of ejecting them out of the country. How’s that one grab you? What a revelation, right?
Under his terms of surrender, it was up to Saddam to prove destruction of the tons of KNOWN WMDs and weapons programs that Iraq had ADMITTED to having. Key words being “Known” WMDs which Iraq “Admitted” to having.
Or continue to fund terrorism as he had done while murderously oppressing his people, fomenting more hatred and resentment which he would conventiently blame on the sanctions.. or on the jews.
While continuing weapons development programs of which Saddam would never pass along to terrorist groups
McNulty
Change Republicans to Democrats and you perfectly described John Street’s last campaign for mayor.
gratefulcub
PB,
Are you agreeing with me, or arguing? I think I know, but I am not sure.
Broken
BumperStickerist says:
How many months do you think it would take for, maybe, 200-300 people to go through Iraq and prove that Iraq had no WMDs? Once you come up with a number, that’s how many months you’d need to keep troops in Kuwait.
From the NYTimes:
nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html
I like this bit:
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Darrell
What is the nightmare scenario of 100,000 troops in Kuwait and 1,000 inspectors for 3 years? A bunch of money spent.
After all that money and time spent, Saddam would have simply reconstituted his weapons programs the minute they left while continuing to fund terrorists.
Is this what the left considers a credible alternative action to toppling Saddam? Please tell me you’re not really that stupid
gratefulcub
Sorry, I am a conservative, I don’t like going half way around the world and losing American lives to make the lives of other people better.
ppGaz
So rather than keep looking for them, which was going along slowly but steadily, we started a trillion-dollar war that we now can’t end because Saddam stuck his tongue out at us?
That’s basically it, right?
Blue Neponset
Not verifying that Hussein had no WMD’s is certainly different from taking Saddam’s at his word regarding WMD. I can’t recall anyone making an argument that Saddam’s word should good enough.
gratefulcub
I’m that stupid. Containment is not appeasement, and we can’t topple every dictator that might build weapons. We are technologically advanced enough that we could have contained him, and worked regime change in another way. Saddam may have been dangerous, but power vacuums are also dangerous.
BumperStickerist
This is one case where a Law Enforcement model works – for example, when a cop asks you to show your hands to see that you don’t have a gun, you can show your hands and prove that you don’t have a gun in your hand.
To draw a rough analogy re: WMD using Law enforcement:
Proving you don’t have a WMD capability seems pretty straight forward. For starters, you let the inspectors in.
Also, Saddam could have helped his case dramatically had he documented the desruction of his stores of WMD from Desert Storm. I’d hate to think that the Iraq war started because Saddam didn’t save his receipts, but, that maybe that’s part of what happened.
And, antebellum, there was consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
.
and for the love of god, don’t cite one specific agency or one person who thought maybe differently.
.
Darrell
Are you saying that islamic terrorism, which in fact was supported by Saddam, is not a threat? I ask this, because I stated support-of-terrorism as a key justification for toppling Saddam and you respond like half-wit about ‘making the lives of others better’
gratefulcub
That’s your plan for containing SH. Don’t tell me you are that stupid.
srv
Uh, but you couldn’t afford the gas. Or the boating fees (Federal and State lakes/reservoirs will be privatized). So you’d need to make it a sailboat, and stick outside of coastal waters.
Blue Neponset
Anderson,
This post was written by Tim not John.
Darrell
You would think so.. but we’re talking about lefties, who are so personally invested in such an ignorant and twisted worldview, that they are now reduced to demanding “Why couldn’t we have kept hundreds of thousands of troops on Iraqs border for years?” as their proposed alternative. That is what they’ve come down to
ImJohnGalt
You’re just not a bleeding-heart conservative, gc.
gratefulcub
SH talked big about sending 25 K to suicide bomber families. he may or may not have, he was doing it for internal public relations. There are real state sponsors of terrorism in the world that are much more dangerous than SH was in this regard. To try to act like taking out SH was a blow to terrorism is delusional. Do you think SH in Iraq was a bigger advantage to the terrorists than the current incarnation of Zarquawi?
Pb
gratefulcub,
I wasn’t entirely sure which way you were arguing this one–I think we’re in agreement, but I’m not sure either. :)
Frank
Darrell- Every regime in the muslim world supports terrorism in one way or another. Most of them in much more dangerous ways than Saddam did. Also every regime in the area is better armed than Saddam was. Bush sold the war on the basis that Saddam was about to get nukes. That turned out not to be true. I wish this war hadn’t been a mistake but it was.
gratefulcub
Agreed. If they were already destroyed, then you can’t destroy them in front of inspectors. So, you must allow inspections. That is what was going on. We could have forced in increase in inspections and ‘proven’ that he wasn’t a threat.
BumperStickerist
The Downing Street memo is more than offset by All The Other Memos that are coming out.
Unless you want your unsourced memo reflecting one particular attendees thoughts to take precedene.
—————————–
And ppGaz illustrates the point about not recognizing net-cost nicely:
slowly, steadily … expensively …
Maybe somebody can explain, why were the inspections going along ‘slowly’?
Hopefully everybody can recognize that the issue whether a country has WMD or is developing that capability should not proceed ‘slowly’.
searp
I sure would like someone to tell me precisely why we are currently occupying Iraq. What are the war aims?
Forget nightmare scenario, the current scenario is bad enough. We’re presiding over the ethnic/confessional disintegration of Iraq, period. Bosnia was bad enough, we weren’t facilitators in that conflict. Here, we precipitated it, and now we’re there scratching our heads and chasing bad guys that will become increasingly difficult to identify. I mean that.
Is the Sadr militia bad? The Badr brigades? Sunni tribals? Baathists? Peshmerga? It seems to me that we will have our pick of people to shoot at, thereby pissing off the entire country sooner or later. Too many bad guys to just kill them all. What a mess.
Laura
You’ve got nothing left but painting every critic of Bush as “the left.” Is John Murtha the left? Is Eric Haney the left? These are men who risked their lives, repeatedly, for this country. It’s not bitterness and hatred that influences their opinions. It’s their frank conversations with current military brass and soldiers. And yet, they’ve got nothing good to say about the travesty in Iraq. Makes you think. Or at least it should if you’re anything but a Bush apologist.
Darrell
Name which of the bigger state sponsors of terrorism you would advocate we invade and topple?
Saddam was operating under a 1991 terms of surrender which he had repeatedly and flagerantly violated over a 12 year period. After 9/11, it would have been real smart to let him continue those violations, don’tcha think? Oh wait, you’re the one suggesting we should have literally kept hundreds of thousands of troops on the Iraqi border for years.. as if that would have solved anything
srv
No one, ever, had provided any evidence that Saddam posed a threat to the US. Just because you believe in the bogeyman doesn’t make him real.
ppGaz
So, we are stuck in a quagmire for 5 or more years, because the inspections were going too slowly?
Jesus, man, you are really making an ass of yourself now.
Go away. Seriously, why do we have to settle for this kind of dumbshit Stormy-scs-stickler commentary in here?
Tim, John, again I ask you. WTF? Is this the best they got?
Pb
BumperStickerist,
I’d agree, except I’d say ‘confirmed‘ instead of ‘offset’. Or were you talking about the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s alleged secret suicide camel brigade?
ppGaz
None. As Iraq is demonstrating quite clearly, invading and pulling down the statues is a tv show that costs around a trillion to produce, and for which we have no control over the final episodes.
Darrell
John Murtha openly tried to discourage military recruitment during wartime. I think it’s fair to say that most active and retired military personnel find that behavior reprehensible. But let me ask you, do find it noble?
The Other Steve
HUH!?
My god, where do you get this shit? Murtha was one of the guys who voted for reinstating a Draft.
Frank
searp- As far as Sadr and his gang go, I dunno, the US military thought he was bad enough that they tried to arrest him. First they shut down his newspaper though. The attempt to arrest him lead to pitched battles with his shiite militia. Finally they had to call it off because the general shiite population was starting to turn hostile, an US forces aren’t able to stay in Iraq with the Shia against them. You probably knew all that already, but I wanted to at least remind myself before it goes down the memory hole.
ImJohnGalt
I remember reading an opinion piece in Reason a while back, although I can’t find it now. It posited a number of reasons why Saddam might have claimed WMDs even though he didn’t have them.
The first was to preserve his machismo image, which kind of fell apart when you realize that he did that simply by not dying in Iraq war I. He could have shown proof, avoiding invasion, and still been alive to dictate another day. In fact with careful timing of his confession and proof, he could have proved Bush a liar.
The second was, I believe, the inherent threat to letting Iran and Syria know he didn’t have WMD (and Israel, for that matter). If that is the case, however, the argument went that it doesn’t make sense that he would have destroyed his weapons. Actually having them would have been a better deterrent that just pretending to have them.
There was also mentioned the possibility that he didn’t have any WMD at all, and didn’t know. That is, that his Baathist subordinates created a Potemkin weapons program, even though the weapons had all been destroyed. Apparently, many Iraq generals thought that other generals had been issued WMD, even though they themselves had not been issued any.
Found the piece! It’s here.
You can read the rest yourself. I’m not sure why at the end he places more credence on David Kay than on any other explanation, but it does certainly open up a number of possible explanations.
Occam’s Razor would seem to indicate one reasons. Feel free to pick which explanation it points to.
gratefulcub
Realistically, our goal has to be to prevent things from getting worse. We can hold off civil war until we find someone to hold the country together. There is no Jeffersonian democracy blooming in my lifetime. We have to stay until some government can establish itself. It will be Shia, and it may or may not be aligned with Iran. But, we can’t pull out and allow a bloodbath.
ppGaz
The question here, Darrell, is whether we find YOU noble.
I find you a suck-ass embarassing piece of crap, myself. An embarassment to your party, and a drag on the blog.
You haven’t answered a direct question today. So shut the fuck up. If you can’t respond, where do you get off asking other people questions?
Pb
Darrell,
Perhaps North Korea. Also on the list (note: not my list)–Libya, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba. Notably absent: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, Palestine, the United States…
BumperStickerist
pp –
back at ya pal.
Your dumb-shittedness is, basically, why your brand of Leftedness will remain marginalized.
And I mean that in a good way.
Seriously, asshat, your slow, steady inspection regime would ALSO COST A TRILLION DOLLARS with following added benefits of:
1 – leaving Hussein in power,
2 – keeping the Iraqi/Ba’athists in power,
3 – killing more civillians (or did you forget that Iraqi civillians were killed en masse by Sadam?)
4 – keeping the Iraqi Army as a regional threat
5 – and never actually having an effective inspection regiment.
Nice work.
Given the level of argument on your part, I might as well prepare for the next 10 years of Republian Leadership.
Dumbass. And, again, I mean that in a good way.
Hail Rove
~ chest thump ~
The Other Steve
Am I the only person in the world who sees a distinction between topping a government, and occupying the country for reconstruction purposes?
I’m not opposed to toppling governments if they are bad in some way.
I just don’t see the justification for rebuilding in all cases.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
I call bullshit. Please explain how containment could possibly cost more than we’re spending on war, and how more Iraqi civilians would end up dying faster than they already are. Facts, man.
ppGaz
Tim, John. Seriously. WTF? Why are you letting these idiots post here?
What possible rationale can there be for a Darrell or scs or Stormy … or stickler … to post here?
Read their posts, and explain it. It makes no sense.
I’ll make a deal with you. Close the door to those four psychotics, and I’ll not post here again until they do.
I’ll give up my seat, and do you a real favor by getting rid of those embarassments to blogdom.
I’m dead serious.
Frank
searp- Oh yeah, I knew there was a reason I was interested in you post: “What are the war aims?” My guess is that the main one is make sure Bush isn’t seen to lose the war. So anything that looks like backing down or giving up is right out. As far as I can tell the Republicans won’t even admit to any goals besides “winning.”
srv
Yes, either Saddam was so f’ing brilliant that he could outwit the UN teams, US, German, French Intelligence for over a decade, or…
That the Darrells of the world make any rationalizations or justifications based on Intelligence or the UN never ceases to amaze me. Do they ever question anything?
ImJohnGalt
I appreciate that you’ve attempted to put a number to the deaths in the alternative scenario, but I really have no idea how you arrived at this number. Without regular patrols which is where IED’s typically kill the troops, do you really think the number would be that high in Kuwait?
Even assuming this to be true, which would to me speak pretty poorly of the troops ability to adapt stationary bases to increased suicide attacks, do you also think military casualties would be proportional? That is, how many injured soldiers would be created under this alternate scenario? And what would that mean to the cost of treating the initial trauma as well as the ongoing costs of helping them when they return stateside?
I think that number would be far lower than you postulate, or are you arguing that if the inspectors were kept in Iraq, that Iraq would have brought the battle to Kuwait? What would have spurred the enmity that would’ve resulted in the suicide bombers? Especially if increased inspections (and I’m taking seriously increased inspections) were tied to reduced sanctions?
gratefulcub
Darrel,
I have answered most of your questions responses directed at me, can you answer this one?
Do you think SH in Iraq was a bigger advantage to the terrorists than the current incarnation of Zarquawi?
I responded to your ‘gotta attack SH because of terrorism meme’ but you have yet to respond back.
RSA
You mean, the way we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars and have hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops on the border of North Korea? These counterfactuals cut both ways.
Davebo
PPGaz
“Why are you letting these guys post here”
For the same reason the media covers KKK rallies.
Darrell
Translation – “Tim/John, you know that Stormy, Darrell, BumperS etc make me feel really stupid, so could you please make them go away so I don’t have to feel so stupid anymore?” ppgaz
gratefulcub
when we invade iraq we will be seen as liberators
if we station troops in Kuwait, the iraqis are crossing the border to kill us
(You weren’t actually suggesting that Kuwaitis were going to kill us were you?)
Rome Again
Make sure to send it in the form of a non-refundable ticket (Iraqi tour vouchers included), sounds like scs has other plans fo this earmark.
Steve
You could make an argument that invading Iraq was even more of an imperative than entering World War II. I mean, I have no fucking idea what such an argument would sound like, but I seriously wouldn’t be surprised if one of these guys made it.
SeesThroughIt
Out of curiosity, what’s the right-wing response to this? I mean, I know what the hardcore right-wing response to me posting this is likely to be, but I mean the actual substance of the article.
Broken
BumperStickerist Says:
The Downing Street memo is more than offset by All The Other Memos that are coming out.
Unless you want your unsourced memo reflecting one particular attendees thoughts to take precedene.
Jeezuz. Unsourced? David Manning, Mr. Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
Now tell me about “All The Other Memos” of which you speak. Do any of them “offset” Mr Manning’s notes that Bush clearly intended to invade, despite the fact that no weapons had been found, and despite the fact that Bush was making public statements that he was trying to avoid conflict?
Impeach!
gratefulcub
Actually, the way that started, was a war supporter saying we had to attack, or station hundreds of thousands of troops in Kuwait with a thousand inspectors. The response was, taking that statement as truth, here is why that is better than invasion. I was one of those making the argument, but i don’t believe that it would have taken that many troops in Kuwait.
ImJohnGalt
ppGaz, at the risk of incurring your considerable enmity, what’s the point of asking John to ban anyone from the blog? If their arguments seem stupid to you, debate them on the merits. If they keep posting what to you seems inane, either ignore them or install the scriptmonkey script that keeps you from seeing any of their posts.
If they weren’t here, who would we argue with? Even if they don’t hear our responses because they’re logic-impaired, responses to them often inspire debate among the rest of us. Let John and Tim run their blog, and participate as you see fit (or not), but it seems counterproductive to me to run off the people who are arguing (however incoherently) for another viewpoint.
And if they were banned, I’d miss you, so there’s that too.
Darrell
Counterfactuals? Uh, we have approx. 38,000 troops in Korea, not “hundreds of thousands”.. and that number will be cut by almost 1/3 in the next couple of years. I hope this information helps.
Also, we have a strong ally in S. Korea which helps us keep N. Korea in check.
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Do you think SH in Iraq was a bigger advantage to the terrorists than the current incarnation of Zarquawi?
BumperStickerist
sorry, I stand corrected: ppGaz is a smug dumbass.
And I continue to mean that in a good way.
for reasons cited above, containment that includes UN inspections in Iraq requires the ongoing presence of at least 200,000 troops in Kuwait.
Why? Because it did.
And, believe it or not, 200,000 troops stationed in Kuwait costs money. Factor in the pace at which the UN teams can conduct their inspections and you’ve got one or two choices –
1 – a thorough effective inspection that would take the better part of 10 years
2 – a half-assed ‘good enough’ look-see before we get tired of having forces in Kuwait. At which point we pull out of Kuwait having spent money with no definitive conclusion.
As to the second part of your question – that depends – how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam during his Presidency?
More or less than 40,000 would you guess?
Does ruthless suppression of dissident factions by a government not count in the tally?
Another question: Do you count the children starved to death by the Oil-for-Food program in the US side of the ledger or Hussein’s side?
.
.
Zifnab
Whoa, there Darrel. Let’s not get too hot and bothered about people stealing elections. You might really put your foot in it, otherwise. At least when Chavez steals elections, he has the decency to at least make it look like more than 50% of the country voted for him.
gratefulcub
Why are we reducing our troop presence in regard to the only member of ‘The Axis of Evil’ (cue evil music) with a nuclear arsenal?
Darrell
I think there is little doubt Zarkawi’s murderous brutality has driven away a lot of sympathy and support for Al-Queda. Saddam had links with Al Queda and other terrorist groups and I think it is naive and stupid as hell to think that he wouldn’t cooperate with them to hurt us. We’re talking about a mass murdering sociopath who ran children’s prisons and tried to assasinate a US President.
gratefulcub
Bumperstickerist,
Instead of 200,000 troops, couldn’t we have attempted to force large scale inspections by building up a small number of troops, that would include international support. Gone heavy on the air power, and threatened? No response…..shock and awe, and ask again. All the while hanging the threat of all out invasion over SH’s head.
Instead, it was renounce the throne or be invaded. That isn’t a choice that we didn’t know the answer to.
Zifnab
globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
I’m still not seeing 200k troops stationed in a peaceful and ineventful Kuwait costing our country $1 billion a month. Call me crazy, but containment still looks like the better deal.
Darrell
Because we have a strong, capable ally next door in S. Korea to help us do the job. And China, N. Korea’s main sponsor, has problems with the possibility of nuclear fallout on their border.. something to do with prevailing winds.
Any other questions?
Andrei
Good lord.
Simple: Stop. Responding. To. Darrell. (and the others.)
ppGaz, ands the rest of you, stop reading BJ and go read Glenn Greenwald for a month or so. It’s quite refreshing to get out of the sewer where people like Darrell and Stormy, who basically at this stage at best represent only 1/3 of the country these days, post tripe that only causes one to get angry instead of atempting to debate with some intellectual honesty.
Steve, Other Steve, and all of you… just remove BJ from your bookmarks until Tim or John finally punt these idiots. It seems John would prefer his own echo chamber as it is since he never replies as hostile to them as he does to us, so just give it to him. It seems Darrell thinks he has some sort of lovefest going with John, so give them both what they deserve, each other at this stage of the game.
But quite frankly, their opinions matter less these days. It’s clear the tide is turning, so quit feeding them what they crave, which is conflict and discord. It’s simple… just DELETE the bookmark and move on. Or if you keep reading here, stop repsonding to them over an over and over.
Zifnab
Wow. That was, like, at least 5 or 6 lies in two sentences. I’m impressed Darrel. You’re learning efficency. Pretty soon you’ll be able to sneeze GOP talking-point bullshit.
Zifnab
Yes. Why are we continuing to co-opt our national security to foreign countries?
gratefulcub
i think this is where we part ways. You think SH was a madman, I don’t. He was predictable. His actions had
a rationale.
Don’t get ahead of yourself and think that i am defending him. My point is that we could anticipate his actions, and contain them. he wasn’t hell bent on self destruction. Invasion of Israel, working with terrorists to attack us, etc. would have resulted in his death and the destruction of his nation, and he knew that.
Kim Jong Il is not rational, he is, in the words of W, “a madman”. He is unpredictable because he is a drunken psycho, and he is in control of a million man army with nuclear weapons. He is a threat.
BumperStickerist
also, you can misread the Duelfer Report and make a case for not invadeing, or you could read the Duelfer Report and have all the rationale you need.
Also, the Downing Street memo contains the justifications for US action within it as well. This is especially true when you take into account the date that it was written and the US actions wrt Iraq during the subsequent 8 months.
.
Darrell
I’ll call you crazy, as “containment” would have left Saddam in power.. and as the Oil-for-food fiasco made perfectly clear, Saddam was not able to be ‘contained’. After 12 years of violating his 1991 terms of surrender, how many more years of ‘second chances’ to you suggest we should have given good old Saddam and his sons? just curious
Rome Again
It seems to me that what Stormy and scs are trying to conjure up is the possibility that an Iraqi civil war will be averted if we just report the good news instead of the bad. That idea makes not one iota of sense to me, but
I think there is another name for it: Ostrich (a/k/a sticking head in sand syndrome).
ImJohnGalt
That is a dubious claim at best.
There was a rather lengthy article published here back in 1993 on the topic, which does not reflect well on Clinton or the CIA either, lest you get your panties in a knot that it was written by Sy Hersh.
Another piece on the plot’s likelihood may be found here
Broken
Darrell said:
Of course Bush is to blame for keeping Chavez in power. Chavez stole the last election.. that, after driving many of the upper and middle class out of the country. But that’s all Bush’s fault, right whackjobs?
Heh! There were multiple international vote monitoring groups in Venezuela. They concluded that the vote was valid.
When a coup was staged against Chevez in 2001, Bush backed the usurpers! So much for backing democracy. Since the coup failed, Chavez understandably has a bit of a grudge against Bush. Yet another example of the incompetent foreign policy of this administration. How many more enemies can he make for us before 2008?
BumperStickerist
The ‘renounce the throne’ was the last option – short of that there was ‘open up to full inspections’ which Hussein did kinda/sorta in December.
Blix’s report on those inspections isn’t particularly complimentary to Hussein. And was ‘too little/too late’
I don’t know whether there would have been any utility of a demo version of ‘Shock and Awe’ to get Hussein to comply with UN inspections. Given the numbers of inspectors involved, I don’t know that any UN-composed team could make a definitive statement about Iraq’s abilities.
But, you’ve got whip-smart people like ppGaz prepared to believe the UN, no matter what.
Because they’re smart like that.
and Bush, Bush is dum.
.
ppGaz
The joke might be funnier, Darrell, if you ever answered a question truthfully or directly.
Blue Neponset
I don’t think anyone is disputing that. The disputed points are the size of the force that would be needed to garrison Kuwait and the length of time it would take to inspect Iraq.
Kuwait is a small country in terms of population and geography. I don’t know that you could station 200,000 soldiers there for 10 years even if you wanted to.
I also have a very hard time believing that it would take 10 years to inspect Iraq. If the US had a $1 trillion incentive to get the inspections done quickly I have a feeling they would figure out how to do it.
ImJohnGalt
Sorry, bad linky – didn’t work on preview unless I added an extra quotation mark, so lemme try again.
The Sy Hersh assassination article is here
gratefulcub
What did they do together? Every government in the ME has links to al quaeda. Every single one. That doesn’t mean that the governments are all working with them.
I am aware that SH shares some goals with AQ, like destroying the secular dictatorships of the ME and replacing them with a Unified Arab caliphate. So, I am sure that SH would be giving up his prize possessions to make that happen.
Remember, AQ’s main goal is not the destruction of the US. They attacked us because they believe we are propping up the governments of SA, Egypt, etc.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
Thanks for quoting me up there, and writing a bunch of stuff, but you forgot to include a substantive response.
Err, because it was a staging ground for the (we now know) inevitable invasion?
No, it would depend on the rate, not the absolute number.
Now that’s a good question. However, given inspections and a robust containment policy, that’s just the sort of thing that we should have found out about and resolved.
ImJohnGalt
Argh. Last try. Feel free to delete the previous post, Tim or John. BTW, if you try to post within 15 seconds in warns you “Slow down, Cowboy.”
Sorry, bad linky – didn’t work on preview unless I added an extra quotation mark, so lemme try again.
The Sy Hersh assassination article is here
RSA
My counterfactual comment was aimed more at Bumperstickerist’s claim that, even if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we’d be spending comparable amounts of money and soldiers’ lives containing Saddam’s threat. It’s reasonable to ask why we’re not spending that amount of money and lives to contain North Korea, a clearly greater threat. Sure, we have South Korea and China looking out for us, but. . .can we really be sure that we’re safe, depending so much on the efforts of other countries?
John S.
Darrell – YOU ARE ENTIRELY FULL OF SHIT.
29 out of 51 Democratic Senators voted for H.J.Res. 114 while 81 out of 207 Democratic Representatives voted for it.
But those numbers qualify as MOST Democrats voting for authorization to use force?
YOU ARE A LIAR.
Broken
Darrell says:
I’ll call you crazy, as “containment” would have left Saddam in power.. and as the Oil-for-food fiasco made perfectly clear, Saddam was not able to be ‘contained’. After 12 years of violating his 1991 terms of surrender, how many more years of ‘second chances’ to you suggest we should have given good old Saddam and his sons? just curious
What BS. Since NO WMD have been found, containment was obviously working quite well. At a price tag of $2 billion/year. One year of this war would cover the cost of 40 years of containment.
Now we have removed Iraq as a major counterweight to Iran. In fact we are now in the position of having to protect the Sunnis against the Iran-backed Shia. We are forced to side with the people we came to overthrow! What sick irony.
Zifnab
The same number of “second chances” we’ve offered Kim Jong Ill and the “elected” leaders of Iran. The same number of chances we give roving bands of thugs in Darfur. The same number that the Republicans were ready to give Slobedan Milosevic when they opposed intervening in Bosnia.
Seriously. Saddam isn’t the biggest badguy on the block. He’s not Hitler, as much as the right would love to portray him as such. It’s exhausting to hear Bush apologists trumpet the fall of a man who wouldn’t even be mentioned if Reagen and Bush 41 hadn’t worked with him so much in the 80s.
Laura
I don’t think a damn thing you say is fair. John Murtha has been nothing but honest. With the constant risk of smearing from the Rovians, his insistence on honesty is plenty noble. Murtha’s admitted his mistake in voting for the war. He had courage to stand up and say what needed to be said, knowing that swifites would come after him. He never claimed to have all the answers, but he wanted to trigger a debate on how to get out of this mess but the Republicans and Democrats were too cowardly to join him in that debate. When he says something, it’s not for political gain. It’s only to help our soldiers. Can you imagine ever saying, honestly, the same about the Bush Administration. Murtha’s not pulling things from his ass, he’s only passing on information that he’s getting from the soldiers on the ground and in the Pentagon. If they get frustrated with what he says, it’s because they’re frustrated with the reality of which he speaks. If you think, when this mess is over, Rumsfeld or Bush will have a fraction of the respect that Murtha has from his fellow soldiers, you’re fooling yourself.
Zifnab
The truth hurts.
Skip
“You can misread the Duelfer Report and make a case for not invading, or you could read the Duelfer Report and have all the rationale you need.”
Nice subtle use of “misread” and “read.” Are you a professional philologist?
The very fact that Kay and Duelfer produced iffy reports should be enough. They were under enormous pressure to come up with a rationale for war.
As for SH talking big about sending 25 K to suicide bomber families, that was for the occupied territories of Israel, which the last time I looked was not part of the United States.
Rome Again
To create endless strife in an area that includes Babylon so that the rapture happens soon? That’s my take on religous wingnut reasoning, which they believe is prophesied according to their Bible.
Of course, they don’t seem to realize that because WE are currently occupying the Babylonian empire, that makes US Babylon and subject to being smashed to bits by God himself, if the prophecy of Revelation is true.
The Other Steve
The troops need to be redeployed to Iraq.
I do not understand this argument. Just from the simplest point a standing mission in Kuwait of that sort could have been handled by maybe two divisions. Yes, it would have cost us some money, no question there. But it would not be near as much as occupation has cost.
A standing military already costs us $X number of dollars.
Iraq costs us an addition $Y dollars. This is due to the callup of additional forces through Guard and Reserves. It is due to the costs associated with maintenance and replacement of equipment being used in harsh combat conditions. It is due to paying combat pay, death benefits, and healthcare, etc.
If you cannot comprehend the difference in cost between maintaining a standing force, and paying for extended combat, then I’m sorry but you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion.
BumperStickerist
Pb – thanks for the compliment, I hope next time you read what I wrote.
Yes. The rate at which Iraqis meet a violent end per year would need to be established during Hussein and at present. My apologies for not stating that as a rate.
I looked at this about a year ago, and do not have the cite at hand. My recollection is that Hussein’s Regime killed ~ 50-75,000 people/opponents per year, as in murdered. This is a bit late in the thead to go back and dig up the source links and I doubt that establishing a factual that fewer Iraqis are dying through violent means now will make anybody reading this suddenly change their mind.
Add in the Oil For Food starving babies who died during Hussein’s time and chances are that there are fewer people dying by violence now than in 1999 or 2000
Since we’ve reached the ad hominem portion of this thread, feel free to call me a reactionary wingnut.
fwiw, I think any comparision of Baghdad even 3 years after 30 years of Ba’athist rule and in the midst of an insurgency to any American city in the past 30 yeas is daft.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That argument is just wrong. I know it feels good to say it, but it’s just wrong.
Regarding troops in Kuwait, 30,000 troops are needed to support the 150,000+ troops in the theater. There would need to be a force that size to allow the 200 person UN Inspection Team access to Iraq. Why? Well, mainly because it took that level to achieve an onsite UN inspection.
As to the cost – 200,000 troops at a average rate of about a $1,000 per month in salary have a payroll of about $200,000,000 per month.
Plus food and lodging.
Plus equipment.
And training supplies,
So, just going off the back of an envelope, that gets us up pretty quickly to the $400,000,000 per month range, if not higher.
Which, btw, remember you’re spending that $400,000,000 to enable a couple of hundred UN inspectors to poke around Iraq.
and you can’t look at the starving children, because Saddam would tell you that that’s an internal issue.
.
ppGaz
Believe the UN? The same UN whose resolution Bush uses as a crutch for his war decision? Or the one which reported no apparent WMD activity, and turned out to be right?
Which version of the UN do you want to jerk us off about?
And produce a post of mine which ever stated that the UN should be “believed” to any degree on any subject in any context without verification, or STFU.
The Other Steve
Darrell is not interested in honesty. He’s looking for partisan gain.
That’s not my opinion, that’s been confirmed through his various posts here.
Rome Again
Is making sure Saddam was overthrown worth so much that you’d stake the future financial health of this country on it? It seems to me the bill is going to come due for this adventure eventually, what will you do when you discover you’ve got insufficient funds, and so do your children and grandchildren.
By the way, gas is on the rise again…
ppGaz
So, the war was a fiscal decision? Made by whom, and on the basis of what criteria?
Are you making this up as you go along, or do you have a rhetorical end game already drawn up on your clibboard?
The Other Steve
It’s interesting you attribute death to Oil for Food, but not to the pre-Oil for Food sanctions.
Would you care to comment on this point?
It just seems to me that you are incapable of having a serious discussion on this topic because you are too caught up in spin to even give the appearance of being reasonable.
Darrell
When you have no facts, and no argument to support your point, this is what’s left
The Other Steve
They don’t care.
It’s not about this country, it’s about the republican party and their patron saint Bush. That’s all they care about is somehow salvaging their image in the fact of this utter disaster.
and I agree with you, the major disaster is the cost in terms of cash, and foreign policy. This Iraq invasion has led to a rise in the importance of Russia and China in the global sphere of influence.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
Sadly, I did. And I’ll never get that time back. :)
No problem; thanks for acknowledging that.
That’s an impressive claim. Now, onto the facts!
Aha, it’s late, who cares, the dog ate your homework… gotcha. So you never really had an answer for me after all.
BumperStickerist
Obvious question, then why did it take more than two divisions to be deployed in Iraq before Saddam allowed inspectors in?
If two divisions were in Kuwait, and were there to enforce the onsite access of UN inspection teams, do you think that Iraq might redeploy its assets to face our two divisions?
Might that require a third divsions? A fourth?
Well, I not only comprehended the costs but I laid them out in the above posts. So, thansk for the ‘reasonable discussion’ comment.
Also, I didn’t say that the US forces in Kuwait would actually be in combat, but that their presence was required in Kuwait before Hussein would allow UN inspection teams in.
and by “UN Inspection Teams” I mean one bus load of guys.
I’m okay with a reasonable discussion, but what makes you think that Saddam would allow the presence of UN inspection teams (for the sake of argument, let’s bump the number of inspectors up 300% and make it 140) absent 200,000 (give or take) armed, ready troops on his border?
Darrell
Tell us, were the Democrats also under “enormous pressure” to come up with a rationale for war when they told us:
There’s LOTS more where that came from. But “Bush LIED People Died!”, right kooks? god you people are dishonest
ppGaz
Shut up, and answer the questions that have been put to you.
McNulty
How can he answer the questions if he’s supposed to shut up?
ppGaz
What argument isn’t wrong wrt to what we know now about Iraq and WMDs?
That we were wise to shoot our financial and military wad for five years over a nonexistent threat?
Or, do you have something else?
Please, trot out the “World better off without Saddam” theme. John Cole loves it, he was posting it himself last summer.
Pb
Yeah, Darrell, if only Clinton hadn’t invaded Iraq. Him and his darn nation building escapades. Please.
Darrell
How so? Are you referring to their influence in supplying arms to despotic regimes or what?
BumperStickerist
clearly, Pb, it’s easier to consider my post about Saddam’s murderous regime and a lack of a link an exercise in bad faith rather than simple truth.
Gotcha.
Or, put another, way, you have no idea how many people were killed by Saddam during any given year, do you?
Anyway, we’re in the shit-flinging portion of the post. You can read this awhile, if you’d like: here’s a start
I think if you tote up the numbers and divide by years, you’ll come up with ‘more’ violently killed or prematurely died.
And a box-and-whiskers chart would probably astound you.
….
That link also goes to the pre Oil-for-Food sanctions.
For me, when Iraqi kids die and the Iraqi Army has warehouses full of food, I’ll go with laying the blame on the Iraqi government.
But, OBVIOUSLY, I’m spinning for Bush here.
Feel free to live in that reality-based world where nothing bad happens that isn’t caused by Bush.
and, for the ppGazs of the Left, if not the actual ppGaz of the Left, any belief that Iraq had no WMD requires absolute faith in the UN inspection teams.
And most people, fools excepted, would recognize the distinction between a UN resolution which outlines a process to be followed and a UN report which shows a finding.
But, have a nice day.
.
ImJohnGalt
BumperStickerist,
I was wondering if you might respond to my question above about the number of casualties (deaths and injuries) in the alternate scenario – I’m still not sure how you arrived at those numbers.
I will agree that belief before the war that Iraq didn’t have WMD depended mostly on the UN inspections, but are you arguing that belief now depends only on that?
Pb
BumperStickerist,
In this case, yes. The Weekly Standard tried this justification already, and even their over-inflated estimate was 3-4 times lower than yours.
It sure seems that way.
If you believe that, *and* you think that constitutes murder, then I can only assume that you’re totally pissed that Bush didn’t invade North Korea and depose Kim Jong-Il, instead of sitting idly by, letting him develop nuclear weapons. Because according to you, Kim Jong-Il was ten times the brutal dictator that Saddam ever was–he starved millions of his own citizens.
BumperStickerist
Sorry, the numbers for casualties were a SWAG based on the presence of a large force of US troops in the mideast drawing some attention from somebody.
Over the course of 36 months, you’d figure that there would be some IED casualties, an incident with a suicide bomber or two (or three), along with training accidents.
There’s no telling what the total amount would be, but there would be some casualties as a result of the slow, steady UN Inspection team in Iraq approach.
The point upthread about ‘the cost’ of this scenario in dollars is moot, since the cost of the war itself is brought up.
Darrell
In direct response to the statement: “For me, when Iraqi kids die and the Iraqi Army has warehouses full of food, I’ll go with laying the blame on the Iraqi government. But, OBVIOUSLY, I’m spinning for Bush here.”
Reality based community my ass
ppGaz
If the inspections were not to be taken seriously, then why were they conducted? Why would we pimp a UN resolution as a basis for war, and then dismiss the UN inspections? Is the UN just a prop for your dysfunctional policies?
Like I said, sitck-up-your-ass, you are just making this stuff up.
DougJ
First off — why do you assume that we should have toppled any state? Second of all, it would have made a lot more sense to invade Iran, if we had to invade someone. They have supported terrorism more than Iraq did and are closer to a bomb than Iraq was.
Zifnab
Again, we come to the singular crisis of conscience. It is unconscionable for SADDAM to stockpile food for his army and starve his people, for SADDAM to massacre his own people, for SADDAM to have rape rooms and death chambers for political dissidents. Just ignore the past 20 years of human history outside the Middle East and your logic might fly.
But assuming you do buy the bullshit meme that we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons (and assuming everything is currently turning up roses there after our daring rescue efforts), you’re still left with the pressing question of why we decided to invade Iraq, and not a dozen other countries suffering from equally cruel, equally murderous, and equally evil regimes.
Zifnab
When logic has fled, only foul language will remain.
Pb
Darrell,
What would you know about it, anyhow. And you still haven’t answered my question, so I’ll re-iterate: what the fuck is your problem?
I don’t care if your mommy didn’t hold you enough as a child or whatever, ok? Cut the passive-aggressive bullshit. If you have a beef with me, then state it already. But if this bullshit is the best you can come up with, then do everyone a favor and fuck off already.
Darrell
Fair points. I agree Iran is probably a bigger supporter of terrorism. they are a serious threat which needs to be dealt with ASAP.. but Iran was not in blatent violation of any terms of surrender which was the condition agreed to in order to stop allied attacks 12 years before. After being attacked on 9/11, you just can’t have an arab strongman like Saddam continue to flagrantly violate those terms of surrender (inspectors had been kicked out of the country for chissakes) when he should have been forcibly removed years earlier. Letting him continue in power under those circumstances would have made us look weak, and weakness invites attack.. read what OBL has to say about weak US responses inviting more attacks
Darrell
Behold the enlightened deep thinkers of the left. Hey, it’s your blood pressure whackjob.
Pb
Oh snap. OBL is Darrell’s foreign policy advisor!
Darrell
as evidenced by those on your side:
Pb
Actually Darrell, you missed the logic:
Based on your responses, I now consider the “if” clause of my statement to be satisfied. So do everyone a favor and fuck off already.
All in favor?
BumperStickerist
Well, just as obviously, you’re just Monday morning quarterbacking because your team didn’t cover the spread.
Well, speaking as a former USAF Korean Cryptologic linguist who served two tours in Korea at Osan AB and one at NSA … no, not really, I’m not pissed at all.
The NK/Nuke thing is a bit of a non-starter. If Kim Jong-Il had all the components in North Korea by 2002, then there’s precious little that Bush (or anybody) could do.
The trick was to prevent Kim from getting the material in the first place. That happened, near as I can tell, on Clinton’s watch. I’m not going to blame Clinton or Albright on this as I have no idea what the real intel showed as to how NK acquired the technology.
I think blaming Bush for NK developing nukes is idiotic.
As a guy who had, at one time, a thorough understanding of NK ground forces Order of Battle along the DMZ, its capabilities, communications, and defenses, I’m not surprised that Bush didn’t order the invasion of the DPRK.
For starters, it’s not a particularly sandy country or one with vast expanses of open desert.
On the plus side, the South Koreans are pretty damn tough fighters themselves. I recall one colonel saying that half the reason the US forces were in Korea was to act as tripwire in case the North invaded. The other reason was to keep the South Koreans from heading north.
The issue of starvation and ‘murder’, there’s a distinction between Hussein, having lost a war and suffering sanctions, and the DPRK fighting the US to a draw 50 years ago.
But, clearly, I’m just spinning for Bush.
But, here’s a thought – can somebody on the left layout, using information then available, a course of action the US should have taken starting from Jan 1st, 2002?
No benefit of hindsight scenarios – if you state that Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, tell why that should be a basis for a policy.
This isn’t a gotcha, btw .. I’m just curious .
.
Darrell
As far as murderous regimes, with 100,000+ of his own people murdered in mass graves plus those he killed by invading Kuwait and Iran, Saddam was probably the most murderous living dictator in the world at that time. Name the “dozen” other regimes equally murderous. You can’t do it, because your dogma doesn’t match with reality
BumperStickerist
The ppGaz of the Left writes:
Well, nice to know you are afamiliar with the history, ppGaz.
The inspections were a necessary hoop to jump through, and Hussein could have allowed actual UN Inspections in accordance with the terms of the resolution.
Which he didn’t.
So, ppGaz, the particular inspections which happened are the issue, not any UN inspections whatsoever.
Your argument on this is hurt by your lack of facts, but, then again that’s how it came to be your argument in the first place.
Cheers.
Broken
Hey Darrell,
We did a fine job containing Saddam while spending only $2 billion a year. He had no active WMD programs whatsoever. Yet, in your mind, somehow containment would require 200,000 troops. Which quite contradicts the evidence.
Bush and Blair knew that the inspectors had found no WMD. In particular, they knew there was no active NUCLEAR program, which is the only real WMD.
It doesn’t matter what Gore thought or what Clinton thought, since Bush had up to date info from the inspectors. Saddam had 500 tons of uranium in country dating from Gulf War I. The inspectors found the IAEA seals INTACT on this uranium, no nuclear program, and no chemical program. In short they found NOTHING. Yet they still invaded, since that was their intention from the get-go.
The US invasion of Iraq has radicalized Iran. The “Axis of Evil” saber-rattling and invasion of a neighboring country has pushed out the moderate Iranian government in favor of radical nutjobs who are building nukes in response to our policy.
By removing Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran, we have destabilized the region. We are now in the position of defending Iraqi Sunnis from Shiites back by Iran. We are defending the people we overthrew! And yet idiots like you think this is all just dandy.
John S.
Why do any of you persist in trying to talk with the likes of Darrell? He screams about “facts”, meanwhile the bulk of the nonsense emanating from his mouth (in the virtual sense) is anything but.
And Darrell, before you start screaming for evidence of where you have patently dishonest and completely ignored actual facts, I refer you to my previous post.
Since you lie so easily about the small things, I have no illusions about your ability to stick to the truth in larger matters.
The Other Steve
Thank you for confirming my suspicions about your bizarre partisan arguments.
ppGaz
Excuse me? The inspections, the results of them, and the cooperation of Iraq with them were pimped as being extremely important in the runup to war. The putative threat was designed around the supposed attempts by Iraq to evade and deceive the inspection efforts. The entire tableau was a charade, then?
Shorter Stickler: I really don’t have an argument here, but I did stay at a North Korean Holiday Inn Express once, and I know a lot of acronyms.
Fuck off, man. You’re a joke.
ppGaz
correction: Shorter Stickerist.
Adan
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That argument is just wrong. I know it feels good to say it, but it’s just wrong.
Not only does it feel good to say, its also true, inapplicable logicl fallicies notwithstanding. Since there was a direct correlation between the weapons inspections to the actions Saddam’s regime took with respect to WMDs, it is entirely logical to conclude that the inspections were effective, as evidenced by the complete lack of any WMD discoveries in Iraq.
money, money, blah, blah…. Which, btw, remember you’re spending that $400,000,000 to enable a couple of hundred UN inspectors to poke around Iraq.
Even if that were true, a peaceful solution would still be preferable to a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives in ~ three years, – if the likelyhood for success were similar. And if they were possible solutions to the same problem. Which, in hindsight, they weren’t.
and you can’t look at the starving children, because Saddam would tell you that that’s an internal issue.
Red herring. The oil-for-food program was a seperate problem in need of a seperate solution.
My recollection is that Hussein’s Regime killed ~ 50-75,000 people/opponents per year,
I’m calling bullshit on this one. That would rank him as genocidal. And deaths due to ill-advised, poorly executed wars don’t count. Otherwise, dubya would have some explaining to do at the Hague.
Darrell
Situation in 2002 – Saddam had ejected inspectors out of the country in 1998 (another in a long line of violations of his 1991 Terms of surrender) after having admitted to the UN that they had tons of Vx and hundreds of tons of weaponized chems
After toppling Saddam – Duelfer Report key findings:
Saddam was waiting for the troops and inspectors to go away in order to reconstitute his programs. And there is a very real possibility that Saddam had WMDs (they admitted to having them in late 1990’s) shortly before the invasion but got rid of them last minute. It’s not like it would be out of character for him to do so.. as in Gulf War I he tried to hide Migs in Iran, who confiscated them
Well at the time of their WMD saber rattling in the late 1990’s, Dems had all the info available as they were in the White House. What happened to all those known WMDs? Saddam could be trusted, right? And in 2002, I have yet to read one substantive piece of info. which was held back from Senate or Congressional leadership.. which is what you seem to be suggesting. I call bullsh*t
Classic example of the cartoonish thinking shared by so many of the ‘Reality based’ community
SeesThroughIt
When you have no facts and no argument to support your point,
this is what’s leftyou are Darrell.Steve
Here’s two posts by Darrell I really enjoyed.
First:
With me so far? You can tell when someone has no facts and no argument, says Darrell, because all they can do is accuse you of being a dishonest partisan.
Second:
Thank God Darrell will never be banned as he is always great for a cheap laugh. Remember, friends, in odd-numbered Darrell posts you’re an idiotic liberal kook, and in even-numbered Darrell posts your hateful rhetoric shows how wrong you are!
searp
Bumpersticker:
Alternate course of action: Identify Al Qaeda members and capture or eliminate them, while focusing on longer-term pathologies (madrassas, etc) that affect our ability to relate to Muslims. Eliminate the power of the Taliban and put a serious focus on helping the broken state of Pakistan become a stable, modern country. Support democracy peacefully, with diplomacy, money and informal exchanges. Promote, to the extent possible, tolerant versions of Islam. Keep Saddam in his box until we figure out a realistic end-state for a Saddamless Iraq, maybe work for a military coup. Talk to the Iranians, yeah they are bad, so were the Soviets. Alter our policies to reflect what I always hoped were our fundamental values as opposed to selling our diplomatic corps to Exxon-Mobil. Make it clear to the world that we believe a settlement of the Israeli Arab conflict will require international (UN perhaps) guarantees and peacekeeping forces, and that the process of obtaining a settlement should be internationalized and put on a schedule, with penalties for missing deadlines.
OK, it is not as exciting as invading Iraq, but it is likely to be more effective. All right, there isn’t one word about the Axis of Evil in it, because there is plenty of evil to go around and I am not given to purposeless rhetoric. All right, it doesn’t require that the President assume extraordinary powers, but he never needed them.
Eural
I’m afraid soome of our Bush supporting friends are going to have bend themselves – yet again – into pretzels over the newest batch of British memos recently released which demonstrate (for the nth time!) that Bush was going into Iraq whether the UN inspections happened or not and whether there was evidence of WMD’s or not.
I don’t understand why this is so hard to comprehend – Bush and his entire administration have openly and publicly supported the invasion of Iraq since 1995 as part of a grand geo-political plan for the US. Theoritically this may have been a good idea, but you don’t implement a major military invasion based on theoritical, geo-political grand strategy. So, he undertook that invasion on false pretexts and under the cover of the nationalism and fear endeared by 9/11 which gave him the popular support he needed. Stop defending “the evidence” because its all smoke and mirrors to achieve a pre-determined goal.
Had we been greeted as liberators, had the war paid for itself, had Iraq established anything resembling a stable, multi-party government, had our plans actually worked none of this evidence would have mattered. As it turned out this is one of the most incompetent administrations in recent history so now the evidence does matter. A lot. And there isn’t any. Bush supporters are trying to defend a cut/paste job meant to satifsy the moment and nothing more.
StupidityRules
There were UN inspectors in Iraq before the war for one reason, and only one reason. Time was needed to get the men and the equipment to Kuwait, but the US and the UK didn’t want Saddam to understand that they already had decided to attack Iraq. So they said that if Saddam would cooperate with the inspectors there wouldn’t be an invasion. And when the buildup was finished, the inspectors were sent home and the war got started.
Broken
Apparently you don’t know what an active program is. A handful of chemical weapons left over from before the 1991 Gulf War do not constitute an active program. To make the claim that these ancient relics were a viable threat to the US, as Bush claimed in his SIGNED STATEMENT TO CONGRESS, is ludicrous.
Saddam had not successfully reconstituted his WMD programs during the four years of no inpections. The 2003 inspections bear clear testimony to that. In short: containment worked. In particular, nuclear containment worked. This nonsense about chem and bio weapons being a real threat to the US is a red herring. The administration was peddling the nuclear threat, the MUSHROOM CLOUD bullshit, which they knew to be non-existent.
The US knew that Iraq still had residual chem and bio from the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. The Clinton administration made sure Saddam did not build NEW weapons by bombing potential facilities in Desert Fox. At no time did Clinton advocate invading Iraq. In fact, Republicans criticized Clinton for even bombing Iraq.
Got any more strawmen up your sleave?
Excuse me? Congress did not have access to the raw intelligence, simply the conclusions concocted by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Presenting only the data cherry-picked to back the Admin’s position does not count as informing Congress, just the opposite. Which is why Sen. Roberts has worked so hard to delay release of Part II of the Senate investigation of pre-war intelligence.
Amazing. I think I will go back to debating evolution with Young-Earth Creationists. They are more rational.
By the way, you never answered me on this:
By removing Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran, we have destabilized the region. We are now in the position of defending Iraqi Sunnis from Shiites back by Iran. We are defending the people we overthrew!
Darrell
Yes, and it looks like those dastardly Republicans got quite a number of Dems to go along with their grand geopolitical schemes too:
Darrell
Ever heard the saying ‘reap what you sow’? What the hell did those Sunnis expect after so many decades of their murdering oppression of the Shia? I don’t think anyone expected there not to be some degree of payback. It remains to be seen where this violence will lead.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
Putting aside the blame for North Korea’s potential nukes and whatnot, let’s get back to the main issue–if Kim Jong-Il was such a bad guy, why not invade North Korea and depose him for that reason?
Aha! Poor Saddam, if only he wasn’t stuck in the sandy desert, no one would pick on him, and he’d be free to starve people in peace…
No freebies, so I’ll just start with the obvious: go after Osama and al-Qaeda…
BumperStickerist
ummm, no.
ppGaz, you’re clearly not familiar with “The Run Up to The War” nor are you of a mind to TAKE SOME FUCKING TIME AND LEARN ABOUT IT.
So, the tableaux was not a charade, Saddam’s compliance with UN inspections was the charade.
Bush called Hussein’s bluff. Dumbass.
More importantly, I know what those acronyms mean, why they’re used, and how they relate to things like verbs, nouns, adjectival phrases, you know, language.
But, as you’ve just declared that you either weren’t paying attention in the summer of ’02 or didn’t bother to remember, I’d point you in the direction of any number of talks that Bush delivered to the United Nations on this subject.
Quite the rapier-like wit, you’ve got there, ‘gaz.
Quite the wit.
Which is good, because otherwise you got nothing.
/eyeroll
Eural
Correct – I’m not arguing that many Democrats didn’t support the Bush plans. I’m saying that Bush and company used their position, information and authority to steamroll the Iraq plan they had in mind regardless of the facts on the ground. They were wrong and now you guys are trying to defend a program which was never meant to ever be questioned or debated because the architects only “planned” for overwhelming success.
To give another piece of evidence – what, pray tell, was the need for the Office of Special Plans created by Rumsfeld? To “find” the intelligence he wanted to support the invasion of Iraq which the CIA wasn’t being so cooperative about providing. You know, that whole evidence thing. Gets in the way of pre-made decision making.
Steve
I, for one, failed to realize that the only Sunnis being killed were the ones who participated in murderous oppression of the Shia.
It’s a bit like saying blacks are justified in killing whites because whites formerly kept blacks in slavery. Well, actually, it’s almost exactly like that.
ppGaz
Right. Saddam claims he hasn’t got the weapons. Bush “calls his bluff.”
Shortly thereafter, when we discover that Saddam was right, he didn’t have the weapons, Bush makes a comedy routine out of looking for the weapons under the Oval Office sofa cushions.
Go away, seriously. You think you can just make shit up and peddle it here? STFU. Beat it. You aren’t even being funny any more.
Anderson
Second of all, it would have made a lot more sense to invade Iran, if we had to invade someone.
Right, but invading Iran would’ve been HARD.
Whereas the latest leaked Brit memo shows that Bush, correctly for once, figured Saddam would be a walkover.
As for Darrell: the same memo shows that, regardless of Saddam’s compliance or lack thereof, Bush planned to invade and oust him, even if a casus belli had to be faked.
BumperStickerist
Staggeringly high casualties all around due to existing NK ground to ground missile sites and their long range artillery, massive loss of South Korean infrastruture, that nuke business, large army, batshit crazy pilots – some of whom would get through to Seoul.
Location. Location. Location.
That begs the question ‘How?’ I’m guessing that you’d break no international laws in ‘going after Osama and al-Qaeda. That would be bad. And you guys on the Left don’t like bad things.
Of course, you’d have the help of every other nation while pursuing this Law and Order operation. Because that’s just the way things work.
I guess, judging from your answer, that Iraq in your scenario would remain status quo 9/10. No onsite inspections, very strong language, that sort of thing.
Until something ‘bad’ happened.
Then you’d go ‘oopsie’.
.
BumperStickerist
Second correction: ppGaz is a smug, defensive dumbass.
Wow.
In GazWorld was the Thanksgiving turkey plastic?
and, btw, outstanding job misreading the post. Outstanding.
Truly.
Full marks.
One time slowly for gaz:
Hussein.Thought.Bush.Wasn’t.Really.Going.To.Invade.
Bush.Did.Exactly.What.He.Said.He.Would.Do.
you could read the speeches at your leisure. If reading is a chore, you could click on some audio feeds and listen to them.
well, gaz, you never were funny. So there is that.
And, please, why the territoriality?
You’ve been making shit up here and peddling it for months.
STFU? Moi?
HAH!
You and what team of UN Inspectors is going to make me?
.
Pb
So all that talk about humanitarian missions is fine just so long as we don’t have a hard target–if we do, then it’s just talk. Incidentally, regarding Seoul, people raised similar concerns regarding Iraq and Israel, but I guess that was also just talk.
Not breaking international laws is bad? Do tell.
After 9/11, I imagine that we would have a considerable amount of co-operation, yes.
If it isn’t a threat, it isn’t a threat. Inspections are fine as a means of preventing war–not as a trumped-up justification for war.
Like how the invasion of Iraq turned out?
tzs
Darrell, whether you want to admit it or not, both China and Russia have become stronger players on the geopolitical stage due to our absolute ineptitude:
1: in paying for the war. We haven’t raised taxes, put ourselves on a war footing, or done anything to actually PAY for this war. We’ve just merrily put it on the US credit card, assuming somehow down the way it will All Pay Off.
Who’s been buying our debt? China. Yeah, yeah, you say we can always reneg on the debt later so they’re worse off than we are.
Here’s a hint. China has a very strong armlock on us right now because they’ve been acting like a vacuum cleaner that sucks up the debt as soon as we produce it. They don’t have to do anything. They can just wait until we put another bunch of US bonds on the market, sit back….and not buy anything. Whoops. We’ll probably see a nice stock market crash at that point as well as a collapse in the bond market.
2. Servicing the national debt. More and more of the money raised by taxes is having to go to paying interest on all those bonds out there. (BTW, if we ever do decide to reneg on paying off on bonds, guess who will have to offer much higher rates if we ever want to get back into the market.)
3. Because our army is tied down in Iraq, and we’re so beholden to China in the matter of debt, there’s not much the US can do when both China and Russia start to push out their own spheres of influence. China starts talking oil stuff with Iran, we rattle our swords, the Chinese raise one eyebrow and say “yeah, and with what army?”
4. Because of our total chaotic blithering incompetence in Iraq, we have shown irrefutably the limits of US power. Both the Chinese and Russia know we can’t get out of bed without tripping over our own feet. How scared do you think they are of us now?
5. We’ve really ticked off a lot of countries who may be quite willing, if not to cosy up to China and Russia, to not be quite so willing when we start rattling the sabers at the UN and trying to put together Grande Alliances. They may be quite happy to sit the next one out. They’re certainly not going to jump at our command, no matter what high-sounding rhetoric our politicians outgas with.
Eural
So now you guys are reduced to arguing that Bush did the right thing after 9/11 by going after a potential threat somewhere down the road while managing to avoid actually stoping or catching the culprits of the real actual attack that happened?
And again – how does all of this square with Bush’s own words going back to 1999 (before he was even president) that he would go into Iraq if he ever got the chance? His policy decision was not based on real evidence of any threat from Hussein. His policy was pre-decided by the neocon movement in 1995. The evidence you defend was known to be weak and was meant only as immmediate cover for the action.
In Bush’s defense he knows real intelligence evidence when he sees it – hence our current relationship with North Korea and Iran.
BumperStickerist
Pb,
We disagree on the situation and probable result in Iraq. Ten years from now, you can apologize.
Also, in your Alt-History you’re forgetting how fast that “We are Americans Now” line went south even before the US went into Afghanistan and, likely you retain some notion of being cuddled by France and Germany – even though the Europeans can’t manage to find Serbian war criminals living among them.
But OBL is a tall dude. So he’ll be easy to spot.
.
Sparky, have you ever looked at a map of the Korean peninsula? Find one that shows cities with their population above 25,000 people and take a good, long look at it.
And a ‘hard target’ / ‘soft target’ argument is, basically, a case where the Left decides that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. It also doesn’t manage to fit in with the facts – the one ppGaz claims to have but is too busy typing ‘STFU’ to share – of why Bush invaded Iraq.
Though, of course, as shown above, there are a variety of theories to explain a rather clear, simple explanation given by Bush to the United Nations in a speech which only I seem to remember.
Steve
I’d say probably the #1 thing we could have done after 9/11 that we didn’t do is hold the Saudis accountable for rooting out their own al-Qaeda connections and funding. Yeah, it’s hard putting pressure on a country like Saudi Arabia, whereas moving little army men on the chessboard looks easy. But that’s ok. American can sometimes accomplish hard things.
ppGaz
So, to you the whole thing was like a High School rumble in the student parking lot?
A trillion dollars, to make a point?
And you wonder why the American people are running away from this clusterfuck as fast as they can go?
Seriously, go away. You’re embarrassing yourself now.
r4d20
Those damn liberal media elites!
If they were turuely impartial we would also see headlines like
“Millions NOT killed in Iraq Today”
“Soldiers Rescue Kitten Stranded in Tree in Sadr City”
“Convoy not attacked during mission”
or
“Young Iraqis sprout pubes”.
No. All we here is the steady drumbeat of negative stories designed to bring down Our Dear Leader.
I hate commies but at least they knew to treat a leader.
tommcmahon.typepad.com/tm/images/mao.jpg
We need some like this for Bush.
Eural
A Cautionary tale –
One night Batman and Robin are out catching the bad guys and are high atop one of Gotham’s towers. Across the way is an open window with a neferious baddie doing bad things.
“Quick, Robin,” says Batman, “let’s swing to other building and use that ledge one story under the window to land on and jump to the open sill above!”
“But, Batman,” Robin replies, “that ledge doesn’t look very secure – I think it might crack under our weight!”
“Never fear Boy Wonder. We just need to use it briefly as a launching surface to the window above. It doesn’t have to hold our weight but for a mere second!”
So away they go…but, unfortunatly, Batman miscalculated and didn’t put enough force into his leap…his fingers merely grazed the window sill before he and Robin slipped back down to the ledge below. Even worse, Robin had calculated correctly – the ledge was unstable, full of cracks and rotten. After a few, very brief seconds of respite the ediface fell to pieces and the Dynamic Duo went plummeting to the ground far, far, below.
The End.
Broken
BumperStickerist said:
Oh, boy. Like Darrell, Bumperstickerist is going to “Edumacate” us libruls.
Something you might take the time to learn: What were the “legitimate reasons” that Bush gave in his letter to Congress prior to launching the invasion?
Say, what? Saddam lets the inspectors in, agrees to destroy those of his missiles deemed to be over-range, and our invasion called his bluff? By cooperating in allowing inspections of his non-existent WMD programs, he was bluffing? What drugs do I need to take to make the logical fallacies in this argument go away?
So, you condone the attack of a country which did not attack us (read what international law has to say about that) but you are all worried about international law in going after bin Ladin, who did in fact attack us? Dude, lay off the shrooms.
Inspections and containment were doing a fine job of containing Saddam. As the inspections showed. As the post-war search for WMDs showed. Saddam had nothing to harm to us with and no plans to harm us. Only in your paranoid fantasy-land was something bad going to happen.
Now we do in fact have a bad situation. Our fine military is being worn down, we are spending money we can’t afford, international respect for our country is in tatters, and we are stuck in Iraq.
The greatest irony is we are now defending the Sunnis against the Iran-backed Shiites! We are defending the very people we overthrew.
Iran was governed by moderates. Now it is governed by radicals building nuclear weapons. We have destabilized the balance of power, because Iraq can’t defend itself against Iran any more. In your delusion, you probably think the Mid-East is safer. Good luck with that.
Pb
BumperStickerist,
I asked you two simple questions:
Neither of which have you been able to adequately answer, despite wasting much time and many electrons, and on what?
Frankly, we don’t even need a Bush speech to show us the shifting rationalizations on the right when it comes to post-facto justifications of their military misadventures with our money–we’ve got it all right here!
Faux News
Darrell proves the “Larry the Cable Guy” adage that “you can’t fix stupid”.