I believe that History will ultimately ponder the conundrum of whether Bush was simply a liar or really that stupid.

I don't think it will ever reach a definitive conclusion.

-Dave Adams-

” Faced with mid-term elections whose outcome will either maintain one-party rule or provide a check on his { Bush’s} power” Rove evaluates the options. Here is my analysis of Rove’s conclusion.

Karl Rove will read this articles and a myriad of others in the same vein and say, OK, they are all on to us. The only strategy left to us is the one that worked so well in Ohio in 2004. We must maintain control of both houses of Congress in 2006 by any means. Otherwise there will be investigations that we must avoid at all costs. Call out all possible Diebolt electronic voting machines to the rescue.

Why are the Democrats, Independents, the Bloggers and MSM not making voter fraud and two stolen presidential elections the number one issue? This is the number one crisis in our country. Two presidential elections have been stolen. If this trend continues America will be an empire not a democracy.

To some reading the above article, my response may seem off topic. I believe that it is the topic we must pursue to solve the crisis that faces this country.

Don't do it on a Diebold machine. :-)

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

Is it real or is it Memorex? Does Bush himself know the difference? It should go without saying that he's "never been more convinced..."

I think he's a lot like Reagan -- he's gotten to the point where he doesn't remember what actually happened, what the truth is. So many lies to remember. So little time to bike.

My private theory is that he was convinced as a child that "if you believe it, honey, then it's true!" And he never got over it.

The authors of the latest book on Rove (Slater and Moore), in an interview this morning, kept reiterating that Rove is kind of a fun, nice guy when you get to know him. Sure he's a bastard. Sure there's a whole list of people whose lives he's ruined. But he's fun.

Maybe screwing people over and over again is excusable in their time-warp as long as you know how to play like one of the guys during happy hour. But not in my time-warp!

It is true in life, sports and elections. When you lose, you must ask yourself what YOU did wrong, not why the judges or voters are so dumb or voting machines are rigged.

When the Democrats lose the House and Senate, again, in November, they will blame the machines, voters stupidity, promotion of fear by Republicans, etc.

They should realize that Americans simply won't vote for candidates that blame America, blame the President and hope America loses in Iraq, cheer as the American deaths mount and promote a bad economy.

People will cheer the fellow in the stands throwing tomatos at the performers, but when it comes to electing a leader, they won't vote for the tomato-thrower.

. . . a personality that key members of his administration play upon . . . restrict the flow of information to him . . . flatter him . . . constant manipulation . . . exploitation of Bush’s foibles by his closest advisers . . . . Sidney Blumenthal

Nice to know we Dems have a fly on the Oval Office wall.

I don't think Bush nor his speechwriters were lying when Bush said that "Saddam threw the inspectors out". I really think they just don't remember, or just remember things the way they want them to have been. Bush himself, I suspect, only remembers perceived slights to himself or his family. And there's not really a tactical upside to having a historical memory. It's more of a custodial thing, one of the institutional duties of the office, which obviously Bush & Co could give f-all about. The media and the voters don't remember, either, so no one's ever going to call you on such lapses.

I do see that a central theme with these folks is a vicious tenacity. When it comes to making tax cut permanent, circumventing Geneva Convetions, persisting in the present course in Iraq, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, keeping Bolton at the UN, etc, etc... to them it is stay the course at all levels come what may. Apparently this stubbornness in the face of negative results holds some macabre fascination with the American people. It has some degree of resonance and Karl&co. are betting that if they simply "stay the course" on all these things--including their campaign strategy--they will prevail politically and ultimately in the greater world. I think it is more likely they will prevail in the former than in the latter case.

Nope. My guess is that Democrats WILL win at least the House this November.

Then they'll have two years in which to watch the Democrat controlled House splitting over issues that can be presented as "blame America, blame the President and hope America loses in Iraq, cheer as the American deaths mount and promote a bad economy".

That should be a great run up for the next Presidential election.

If the Democrats lose that, they will be reinforced in their belief that their opponents, like the public, are incredibly stupid.

Far too stupid to have made it really difficult for even the Democrats to not win control of at least one House this November and thus be confronted with having to either decide to fund and take responsibility for the war in Iraq or to cut off funding and accept responsibility for defeat.

Its pretty obvious from discussions here that quite a few Democrats actually believe their incredible cleverness is what will hand them a victory in the House elections.

I think observations about Bush's conduct and what it indicates about what type of person he is, is cogent as long as it comports with the facts. That is if a guy goes out and rapes your wife and burns your house down I think you have a right to--among other things--conclude that he is a vicious asshole. So this whining about "personal attacks" on Bush are really tedious and just sour grapes.

kosmotropic:

You appear to be saying that perhaps Sid Blumenthal was saying that Bush does know that he was lying and that Blumenthal's style of wondering whether or not Bush knows the difference is merely a tongue in cheek way of saying that he does.

You also appear to be saying that Sid Blumenthal might have been indicating that Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey".

Finally you quite unequivocally ARE taking objection to my having pointed out the content free nature of Blumenthal's speculations, claiming (falsely) that this was an objection to making personal comments about the President and resolutely defending an entitlement to speculate.

This appears to contradict that you yourself saw two directly contradictory propositions that Blumenthal might have been arguing.

Elsewhere you claim that truthful statements should correspond to a "fact of the matter".

Do you wish to make any statement, speculative or otherwise, as to what the facts of the matter might be:

1) Bush knows that his statements were false, or
2) Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey"
3) Sid Blumenthal believes that Bush was lying, or
4) Sid Blumenthal believes that Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey"?

My views are 1) yes, 2) no, 3) and 4) Blumenthal is engaged in entirely content free pontificating. I do not need to subject Blumenthal to psychoanalysis with an injection of sodium pentothal to form that opinion of his post.

What are you engaged in?

In his own mind of course Bush is correct in his policies.  Because he operates under the premise that if a person runs head first into a 1 foot thick concrete wall enough times, trying to punch a hole in the wall with their head, eventually the person's head will triumph over the concrete.  Plus he knows he has two more years of fruitless head banging to go.  So when history points out his folly he can just say he is not to blame...he just wasn't given enough time to defeat the wall, and it wasn't that he tried to take on the wall in a completely ineffective way.

Just like his religion requires "faith" he wants everybody to have the "faith" in his governing which has constantly been divorced from reality.  And no matter how strong a person's/people's "will" is, that "will" cannot alter reality...

Hoo boy! Ron, you raise the big question, and that's why -- all of a sudden -- American leaders need clarification as to what "decent" and "humane" and "appropriate" mean. Not to mention "rules..." I think "quaint" was used to describe those rules.

Is he viciously stupid, or stupidly vicious? Who knows? I often wonder about the passive/aggressive name-calling and mean spirited comments cloaked as "kidding" or "joking". It's really just a sneaky way of bullying other people.

I was curious about the comment made by a British official that Bush was never allowed to meet alone with Blair - Cheney was always "a silent and menacing presence." Is that because his own people think Bush is a loose cannon, or because he's so stupid that Cheney had to be there "just in case...?"

Clever analysis. I do believe, however, it is always best to win EVERY time there is an election.

Wouldn't you hate to be running a Democrat campaign where what is good for America is bad for you and what is bad for the country is good for your candidate?

Even liberal Republicans like McCain are better than "conservative" Democrats like Lieberman.

Because he operates under the premise that if a person runs head first into a 1 foot thick concrete wall enough times, trying to punch a hole in the wall with their head, eventually the person's head will triumph over the concrete.

Yeah, too bad he's not using his own head!

You've almost got.  The whole point of that description in Froomkin of Bush's motivation is the absence of any "foreign policy analysis" in Bush's decision-making.  You must agree that Bush is the "decider" and he is responsible for U.S. policy such as it is.  The question of whether Bush is cynical or not, whether he is principled or not remains unanswerable. One can analyze forever the foreign policy of this administration and it will go nowhere. 

Consider that at this time it seems that the Bush administration has to decide whether its first priority is winning the off-year election or winning in Iraq.  They are mutually exclusive if one considers the increasingly bad news coming from Iraq from inside the U.S. military (Anbar) and underestimated body counts.

Do you suppose more principled or cynical speeches from our President  will fix that or do you expect Bush to reveal serious policy analysis in support of his words.

I think Billmon has it right.  Talking about winning in Iraq is not the same as doing it. 

Iraq is already a defeat. Anbar province is lost, the insurgency grows endlessly, and the puppet government is trying desperately to transfer its allegiance to Iran. Sistani has given up hope. The Turks are now shelling Kurdish areas of Iraq at will. American forces are higher than ever, but less effective than they've ever been. And the reconstruction program is just about over with nothing to show but failure piled on top of failure.

Iraq is lost, there's nothing left but the dying. I figure at least three or four more years of that.

Bush will never allow America out of Iraq while he is President. So, barring disaster in a greater middle eastern war, the official withdrawal will come probably within the first two years of the next presidency.

Funny.

How about waterboarding? Is that torture? Hmmm.

What about drenching someone with ice cold water, chaining them up in a room, and turning the air conditioning on max? Actually, that one sounds kind of funny, eh? Except that at least one guy died.

Howzabout sticking a lit cigarette in someones ear? Maybe not so funny?

Using dogs to tear into a naked prisoner? Oops, well, I guess if the dog actually rips a prisoner up, then thats a mistake.

Sleep deprivation? Starvation? Kidnapping a child as a hostage and throwing that child into the adult prison population.

Yeppers, torture, sure is a funny thing. I'm laughing.

I found the following excerpt in an article entitled “Dangerous Religion” from the Sojourners website (free registration required):

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

I wonder how much of Bush’s radicalism is bred from religious fervor.  If Bush sincerely believes that he’s been "chosen by the grace of God to lead" at this moment in history, that belief could be part of his obstinately staying the course, not being willing to listen to dissenting opinions, and being intellectually incurious.  Being anointed and divinely inspired carries with it a notion of infallibility but also closes the mind and blinds the eye to other possibilities and outcomes other than the ones you envision.  If he sees himself as directly fulfilling God’s will, he has no need to question his motives or methods or change course because it all comes directly from God and is necessarily perfect and will play out as it should.

Glenn
Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.-Hubert H. Humphrey

Thanks for sharing this.

What can we do?

The only solution that I think will work is the one proposed at MyDD... WE become the poll workers, elect people who are honest and not republican shills to sec. of state. positions, so that they can fix the system. The only way is to take over the system from the ground up.

Anything else will be easily portrayed as Tin Foil Hattery.

Seriously, Arthur. Iraq's situation is irretrievable. There are no good outcomes, only a series of ranges from bad to spectacularly catastrophic.

The bad options are immediate withdrawal and taking the lumps.

That won't happen. Instead, the future holds a game of delusion and hot potatoes, as no side wants to bit the bullet, but increasingly, it must be bitten.

I think the word is "idee fixe." That's a mental disease, not forthrightness.

People always talked about Lyndon Johnson as being an odd, intimidating, and often times irrational man.

And then in college I had a horribly liberal professor who absolutely loved the man despite the fact that he is the worst ruler in our nation's history.

Ever since Bush started running for president I have never seen the answer to a simple question. Why would anyone vote for him? The Democrats still have no idea, as they cannot understand Republicans enough to even grasp why they support Bush let alone come up with a counterargument.

And even Republicans can't explain why they vote for Bush, even now. Since their explanations make no sense either, the Democrats even after all his disastrous decisions still have no idea how to run a campaign against him. They seem to think Republicans will turn up like zombies in the end and vote what ever he wants. Consequently a rational argument on policy is a waste of time.

Also Rove will just come up some "up is down" nonsense that defies logical analysis, the Democrats will have no answer for it and will lose for "not getting it".

Not only that, no one else in the other countries in the world understands Bush either, just the Republican zombies who vote for him for mysterious reasons.  

Calling Bush an idiot or a madman (though he probably is) is no help because it is an admission they don't understand him. It might have a cathartic effect but it doesn't help in working out how to get rid of him.

But it isn't all about Bush, so why can't Democrats make at least some kind of strategy on the election aspects that have nothing to do with Bush? Winning back the house is not really much to do with Bush, except for the chance to launch some investigations. It's about running the country better, and so far the Democrats are silent about how to do that. They assume that since logic doesn't apply to Bush it doesn't apply to the rest of politics any more either.

Even Republicans in the house seem to believe this now. They have no rational policies any more, and are unrecognizable as conservatives. They think they will slime through somehow at the last minute and then the corruption party will go on as before.

The only sure thing is the Republican victory will be over something utterly illogical. It might be to stop gay marriage which the Democrats aren't proposing. It might be the Democrats won't get Bin Laden though they are the only wants who seem to want to get him. It might be Bin Laden makes some special videos to help Bush out again, so Bush can say Laden wants the Democrats to win. Iraq might collapse completely so Bush can say it is doing too well to allow the Democrats to ruin it. Poor white people might even vote to stop the Democrats raising taxes on millionaires again, while they vote to keep their minimum wage as low as possible. Whatever it will be, it will make no sense and it will work. 

A congress and senate in the hands of Democrats can function as if Bush doesn't exist to a large degree. So if the Dems want to win the election what are they going to do? Can they explain all of it without using the word Bush in any sentence in it? If they can't then they are probably going to lose because they don't have a reason besides Bush to win. 

That's probably one of the most ridiculous political commentaries anyone has written, but unfortunately it seems to be the most accurate so far.

I would add that Brooks is the quintessencial Neocon.

First and foremost he keeps his 'neoconness' a secret. But that is one of the characteristics of most neocons. They almost never walk around saying they are neocons. They like to keep what they really believe a secret. It's not for you to know anyway, as you are not an elite and so don't diserve to know. But if you start looking through some of Brook's work, it jumps right out at you.

For instance, he put his NYTimes column to work writing a review of a new book on Economic history that is revisionist in favor of the role that the catholic church had on economic development of the west. The common view is that the economic rise of the west began with the reformation, which broke the stangle hold on the control of thought - just compare Galileo's life with Newtons, both brilliant scientist, but on opposite sides of the reformation. Galileo was hazed big time. Newton was exaulted as a member of Britain's royal society.

The revisionist thrust Brooks was getting behind is that that Catholic church's hierarchical order protected and spawned learning and technological development and economic development.

This is laying the ground work for making the Neocon case. They believe that philosophical elites should rule, and the masses controled by religiosity. The Neocons like religion, but especially the kind that is hierarchical and authoritarian, that falangist catholic model is the kind that gets their tail wagging.

To bite into the revisionist history Brooks had to over look the Inquisition and the hazing of scientist and the half millenium of a monopoly on literacy in the west. Of course its not his book, so its not his thesis, only his review on a work. Thus Brooks is able to keep himself two steps removed and seemingly objective, all positions neocons like to take. Furthermore, being of Jewish extraction, advocating for a book that is pro-catholicisms role in history ads to the objectiviness he tries to project.

But its just a ruse. Brooks is thick and heavy a neocon of the highest order. And he'll carry the neocon water every inch that he can, though always trying to look reasonable doing it. He believes in tax breaks for the rich, but has a different spin on it. etc....

As for Lowery, I can't say the same for him, I just haven't read as much of his stuff.

I'm incline to believe that Bush believes as much in the God that put him where he is now as Hitler believed in the "providence" that put him in the German Chancellorship.

Bush is first and foremost a neocon. Neocons have two orders: High order is the Right Wing Wealthy and the lower order the right wing religious fundies. Bush is on the lower side of the higher order. That is to say he's a member of the Wealthy elite that believes they should rule society. That elite is an elite because they are capable athiest - what I believe Nietsche called "super man" men who could still be ethical even though they were Atheist. But that same elite, those same athiest keep their athiesm secret because they believe that the masses must be spoonfed religiosity in order to be controled, in order to be molified, in order to better cope with the terrible condition of peasantry and poverty that the elite keep them in. Now accordingly they arrive at that atheism by way of philosophy. But Bush is not a high intellectual Neocon, really capable of philosophy, but just like everyone wants to think that someone else is a nerd, including nerds, Bush wants to think he is capable of higher philosophic thoughts. Else he doesn't deserve to be a ruling elite. Its the money he's born into that put him there, but its the philosophy that's suppose to be the reason he's there. So I am sure that he's put in some time philosophizing just so he can sit at the high neocon table. To wit, during the sixty minutes piece, Bob Woodward said, with a sense of shock, that Bush told him "in the end we are all just dead." Any atheist will recognize this right away, or any one who knows atheist - its what they believe, if they believe anything. I'm sure Bush confused Woodward, as one of the elite Journalist at the time, as an elite, he spoken to him both philosophically and as atheistically as best he could.

What makes Bush unique is he is an atheist to elites, and he's a fellow travelor to religious fundementalist. But would you expect anything different out of any politician? Especially him?

The high neocons keep their atheism a secret. But show unqualified respect for the religious among them. But they really don't believe. Neocons don't want to be identified as to who they are or what they really believe. But the high neocon that takes the job of politician has to really be an atheist to be part of the higher order, but has to be religious in order to rally the base, the lower order - which provides all the foot soldiers willing to do the bidding for the wealthy elite. To do this the Neocon politician has to be a great lier. Not difficult for an atheist. (then again, neither is torture, that is if you are Nietsche man, less than, super - that is once an athiest, prone to barbarism. While the entire continent of Europe proves Nietsche wrong - they are 'godless' but more civil with less crime than us, Bush himself, of pedestrian intellegence, at best, as an athiest doesn't understand the humanitarian and ethical problems of torture.)

Bush's real core skills sets are the ability to lie, blatently and unflinchingly and in a way that is technically not a lie. His second core skill is that he is a pathological bully, that is he only understands one parameter: force. Rule of law, Justice, fairness, that's all transparent to him.

Which is also why he probably really isn't a Christian. To recognize the beauty of christianity, or most post axial age religions is to recognize fairness.

After all, in "Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis used the universal concept within humanity of the principal of fairness to prove that their is a God and that God is a Christian God. But the principal isn't universal. Nazis, Fascist, Falangist, Neocons, Left Behind Christians, all are of the order of 'non-fairness' types.

In the aggregate, and long term, such types should be locked in a cage as they are threats to civic life. Quite often they are as criminals.

Bush never goes to church, and he doesn't have Sunday services, let alone daily services, in the whitehouse. To Neocons religion is a political utility. Bush is no more religious than the chair I am sitting on as I write this. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with anything he does other than political expediency. His atheism, on the other hand, has everything to do with what he does.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

"A war is won or lost before the fighting begins."

-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War."

This was true in 500bc or whenever it was written.
It was true when Napolean went into Russia,

True when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor,

True when America went into Vietnam (see Graham Green's "the Quiet American" written in 1952, published in 1954 predicting the next 20 years of history in Vietnam).

And it was True when Bush went into Iraq with a skeleton force and no plan for occupation.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees.

No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.


America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa.

There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Gettysburg.

Certainly, George W. Bush's name is written in very large letters on the list of cowards. Some other politicians are of a different type altogether . Senator Inouye knew war. He voted 'nay' for George W. Bush's war in 2002. A person who cannot tell the cowards from the heroes is the biggest coward of all.

The politically correct regulations at Gitmo are unbelievable.

Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous.

A multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How?

Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

You are correct, Workerbe, some behavior is nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

Gettysberg,

Cowardice takes many forms. Bush has shown a consistent inability to deal with problems not of his own initiative. Every time a crisis has come, the man has frozen solid.

As for sadism, its not any more speculation than his height, weight or what sort of suit he most frequently wears. A childhood history of torturing small animals is a classic indicator on most diagnostics of a sadistic personality type. Bush's sadism is overt and unconcealed.

Wow. You sure seem to know a lot about Gitmo. Got any cites for these allegations?

It strikes me that you don't know a lot about interrogation techniques. You have this idea that all it takes is to slap em around a bit, waterboard em, and they start blubbering.

In the real world, it just don't work like that. What you get is the hard boys clamming up, and everyone giving you a lot of junk info.

Uh huh. And 82 of the current detainees are on a first name basis with the Easter Bunny.

America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Bullshit on both counts.

Really. Personally, for 'worst', I'd pick:

1) James Buchanan, stumbling into the Civil War.

2) George W. Bush, never saw a war he didn't like.

3) Ulysses S. Grant

4) Warren G. Harding

Ronald Reagan only escapes 'worst' for being one of the luckiest sumbitches ever.

Seriously, Blumenthal's post is about Bush's "radical consistency" in maintaining "stay the course" in the face of the "irretrievable" reality Blumenthal, you and many others here are so certain about.

I do not disagree with your view that "Bush will never allow America out of Iraq while he is President." Nor do I disagree with your view that "the future holds a game of delusion and hot potatoes".

My point was that what follows from a Democratic victory in November, almost as inevitably as that victory itself, is two years of most of the Democratic base getting increasingly insistent on your sort of defeatist mantra demanding that the millions of people who voted in free elections should be sold out and left to the mercy of Baathist and jihadi head choppers and Shia clericalist death squads and neighbouring regimes that would love to intervene.

I doubt that a majority in Congress would actually "bite the bullet" by cutting off funds for the war. But they won't bite the bullet by taking responsibility for helping to win it either. Instead of being able to unite around a policy of "waffle and carp" as an irrelevant opposition, a Democrat majority will have to split on votes as to whether to "cut and run" or "stay the course" since their votes on funding the war will actually matter when there is a Democrat majority.

However well or badly things go in Iraq, things will be seen as going very badly in the US Congress and the Democratic party will enter the 2008 Presidential election badly split.

Sneering about how stupid you think Bush and his supporters are and how badly things are going in Iraq will continue to provide a warm inner glow for people posting here but will not in any way endear Democrats to US voters in 2008.

You will get the same response I gave - "thanks for sharing", but less politely.

Your claim that the Iraqi government is a puppet is patently ludicrous. Tell it to Howard Dean who was bitterly complaining about the Prime Minister's open support for Hezbollah against Israel.

The Iraqi people and their elected government don't have any option about whether to keep fighting. Sistani doesn't have any option to give up.

America's options about whether to continue supporting the Iraqi people are somewhat illusory too.

The war will last longer, and cost more in both blood and treasure than people were led to believe.

That will not make defeatists any more popular. It just makes you more and more irritating as the war and its costs drag on.

Its worth noting the contrast with Vietnam. If you actually wanted either Baathists, jihadis or Shia clericalist death squads to win in Iraq you would be able to present a more inspiring critique of the war than droning that it is irretrievably lost.

But those 3 factions cannot support each other to win and opponents of the war here cannot support any of them to win. So you are simply stuck.

In the Vietnam war, opponents of the US aggression did want the Vietnamese revolution to win, we said so openly and we were winners, not losers.

You cannot inspire anyone with a program of "let's bite the bullet and lose", nor can you run a Presidential candidate on a platform of "vote for me - I'm a loser".

your sort of defeatist mantra demanding that the millions of people who voted in free elections should be sold out and left to the mercy of Baathist and jihadi head choppers and Shia clericalist death squads and neighbouring regimes that would love to intervene.

Reality is not a 'defeatist mantra' Arthur. Reality is simply reality.
The 'free' elections were hardly free nor honest. And the United States has already sold out to Shia clericalist death squads, has been defeated by Jihadi head choppers and post-Baathists, and seems to be sitting on its hands while the neighboring regime of Turkey intervenes by shelling the Kurdish regions.

So spare me the moronic talking points, or the discussion will get ugly. And don't even begin to threaten me Arthur. If you were around for the troll war, you would appreciate just how unpleasant I'm happy to be.

The Iraqi people and their elected government don't have any option about whether to keep fighting.

That option seems to be to keep fighting the Americans. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi's believe that attacks on US troops are justified. American support is nonexistent.

Equally nonexistent is the Iraqi military, with only light infantry, no artillary, no aircraft, no logistics, no officer command structure and no independent function outside of US control.

Sistani doesn't have any option to give up.

Read the newspapers. Sistani *gave up.* He quit. He's stepping away from the political process and he's acknowledging that he has lost the ability to influence it. He's stated he's going to stop trying.

America's options about whether to continue supporting the Iraqi people are somewhat illusory too.

The war will last longer, and cost more in both blood and treasure than people were led to believe.

That will not make defeatists any more popular. It just makes you more and more irritating as the war and its costs drag on.

Won't make the guys who lied their way into it any more popular either. Given that their every other pronouncement turns out to be a lie. Nor will endless lies change the outcome.

If you actually wanted either Baathists, jihadis or Shia clericalist death squads to win in Iraq you would be able to present a more inspiring critique of the war than droning that it is irretrievably lost.

It's not about wanting anyone to win. If it was about wanting someone to win, I'd be rooting for the United states on its 'democracy and freedom' model. Unfortunately, the 'democracy and freedom' model was nothing but a pack of lies intended as cover for some buffoonish attempt at world domination.

There's no one to root for, Arthur. There's just bad outcomes every which way.

But those 3 factions cannot support each other to win and opponents of the war here cannot support any of them to win. So you are simply stuck.

With my pal, Mister Reality, with whom you are apparently not on speaking terms.

Where did you get the following "information" from?

Some 20 current detainees have direct personal knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and nearly everyone of the current 440 say they would honored to attack America again. Let's take them at their word.

As others have said, I would like to see some links supporting the descriptions of the living conditions you outline. But for the moment, let me take you at your word.

Being fed well and having the oppurtunity to catch up on your reading is not compensation for having no process of law that requires that the evidence that led to you being imprisoned be reveiwed so that the accusers are responsible to someone other than themselves.

Right now there is only limbo. Who cares a fig about what you say or do in Limbo?

Valdron,

Kiwi has taken this word for word from an article in yesterday's NY Post by Richard Miniter, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

I understand your point completely. I'm not quite sure exactly WHAT the reality of the situation is with Bush or with Blumenthal. I did indicate that I tend to believe that Bush was/is fully cognizant of what he is actually doing. As for Sid, I cannot speak, but strongly suspect he is not entirely serious about the
"Bush is in a fog" hypothesis, which leads me to think that he was engaging in some tongue-in-cheek.
Generally speaking, I have found that discerning truth about what is going on in Washington and everyday life is very tricky business. I would much rather hedge my bets than proclaim absolute clarity (moral or otherwise) as this Bush bunch is wont to do.

If you want me to come out one way or the other I would agree with your evaluations of 1,2,3,4 but I would not be so harsh on Sid about it.

Yeah, I would consider that a credible source. That doesn't do much for the editorial content.

Seriously, is America such a nation of pussies that you'll throw over all your principles any time you hit a speed bump.

The 'prisoners are treated sooooooo well'. Yeah, heard it all before.

Look, its simple. These guys are POW's, in which case the Geneva Convention applies. Or they're criminals, in which case the normal rules apply.

Period. End of story.

America either stands for something, or it doesn't.

I think you're right - they're voting for the lesser of two evils, weighing a $1 trillion war-for-profit justified by lies, an unbelievable increase in the national debt, 100,000+ human lives, environmental destruction, and unprecedented governmental incompetence and corruption on the one hand versus gay Lucifer-loving baby-killers on the other. As a theory, it explains a lot, both about voting behavior and Republican campaign strategy.

.

It seems we are in furiouis agreement.

Workerbee, Valdron, I don't question your good faith and honest belief in your posiiont, but I wouldn't want you defending my family. Thinking like yours will get us killed.

When the Japanese resorted to suicide bombing, we did not waste time proving we had "higher moral" standards.

Nor did we negotiate.

We burned and vaporized their cities. Then it was over. That is how you do to achieve peace. No negotiations, just victory.

Ask the Jihadists. They understand. They laugh at your "moral" confusion. They understand force.

If Bush would only vaporize Damascus, Theran, and yes, Mecca, the Jihad would be over.

Your good faith, but dead wrong, approach to dealing with these Islamofascists is the reason the Democrats cannot be trusted with our nation's defense.

Well, excuse me for not getting on board with your genocidal fantasies.

Vaporize Damascus? Al Quaeda isn't in Damascus. There is no fundamentalist Islamic movement in Damascus. There are no Jihadi's in Damascus. In point of fact, back in the 80's, the secular nationalist Syrian government had a set to with those sorts of folks, fought some uprisings, killed several thousand of them and pretty much leveled the town of Hama. So much for that.

In point of fact, I'd just like to mention that Syria has not fought a war with anyone since 1973, has not had a significant military conflict since 1983. It invaded and occupied Lebanon to quell the civil war, which it did successfully, and with the consent and encouragement of both Israel and the United States. Syria supported the United States during the Gulf War, and supported the United States following 9/11, shares its intelligence information with the United States, withdrew from Lebanon and maintained neutrality during Israel's recent war with Hezbollah.

None of which matters to you, does it? No, you just want to get your woody on by nuking them.

How many innocent people in Damascus, you figure? Are they all subhuman vermin? Doctors, nurses, carpenters, bricklayers, mothers with infants at their breasts, kids playing hopscotch, elderly old gomers feeding pigeons. Four and a half million people, in a country of nineteen million, one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, in a country that the United States is not actually at war with...

And you just want to nuke them.

And lets see. How many does the initial nuke kill? Half a million? A million? Four million? Then of course we've got the attendant collapse of government functions, hospitals, fire control, policing, emergency functions, etc., that'll magnify your death toll. Lots more innocent dead people.

And hey, then there's the plume of radiation fallout which will contaminate not just southern Syria, but southern Lebanon, northern Israel and northern Jordan.

And you just want to nike them.

That's just sick. It's beyond sick.

Tehran, metropolitan area of fourteen million people. Nuclear contamination would extend to the Caspian sea and all the countries which border on that.

The centre of a country which the US is not currently at war with. A country which does not host Al Quaeda, and being Shiite, opposes Sunni fundamentalism.

Mecca? 1.3 million, religious centre to billion moslems, keystone city for America's biggest ally in the region.

And you figure Bush should just nuke them and all problems go away?

That's beyond sick. It's stupid, moronic, vile, morally bankrupt, repugnant, childish, ignorant and deeply, deeply offensive. It's a recipe for failure and disaster, and a recipe of psychotic proportions.

Congratulations. You've done the impossible. You've managed to make the Jihadi's look good.

I'd like to emphasize that I don't know you. All I can respond to is your words which combine moral bankruptcy with profound stupidity.

What I find staggering -- seriously -- is the immorality of Kiwi's thinking quite apart from the irreality and impracticality others have note. I know that Kiwi is not alone in wanting this kind of B-film "solution." There have always been people who want "final solutions," but history shows us they are not the kind of people who should be walking around unattended.

Kiwi,

OMG, yes everyone "sees."

Except you.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

According to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, for the European edition, strategic bombing of German cities was not the major factor of defeat. Instead, it was concentrated attack on key industrial systems, oil being the most important. So, it's very hard to argue that bombing German and Japanese cities were the best things ever to happen to those countries. As wit the German bombing of Great Britain, it stiffened the will to resist of the survivors.

It may well be that a majority of Muslims are outside the Middle East. Some countries with Muslim majorities, such as Turkey and Pakistan, are at least reasonably allied to the US.

If you are speaking of Arab Muslims, remember they aren't all in the Middle East, but also in North Africa (the Maghreb) and the Horn of Africa. If you aren't restricted to Arabs, where Arab nationalism, what do you do with countries where there has been home-grown terrorism? Indonesia, with Papua New Guinea? India? Malaysia? Thailand?

By the way, if you are seriously suggesting that nuclear weapons vaporize cities, I suggest you get a little more familiar with their effects. They aren't magic wands that disappear things. The standard reference, now with the third edition online, is Glasstone'sEffects of Nuclear Weapons.

Carey Sublette's High Energy Weapons Archive is also excellent.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It is similar to tough love with your children.

And I'll bet you give them a good vaporizing every night too, don't you?

I'm beginning to believe you are a troll, but I'll give a shot or two at answers. First, do you realize that not all Muslims are in the Middle East and not all want to convert people, much less by the sword?

You haven't bothered to answer specific questions, such as what to do with Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey. You haven't argued against any of the strategic bombing analysis. You don't seem to have a particularly good understanding of nuclear weapons, but you want to use them. Your target list doesn't make sense if you are attacking holy cities, as you left out Medina and Qom. What are you using for reference?

In general, you don't negotiate with terrorists. Rather, you kill them. Unfortunately for a world that isn't black and white, there are governmental or paragovernmental organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah. There is useful intelligence value in those discussions, if for no other reason than finding motivations.

The ones that want to kill don't want to negotiate. That particular ideology comes from people following the theories of Sayyid Qutb or Abdullah Azzam. I'll happily pull the trigger if indicated.

In other words, are you just being dramatic about dissolving the Constitution, or are you just pissed off?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Since I was unable to find any evidence of your claims and other cites that contradict yours, I suspect you are deliberately spreading falsehoods. I have labeled this post a "troll", as the only apparent purpose is to mislead and lie.

Should you provide proof, though, I will be happy to remove the troll-ranking. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

I'll give you 1, 2, and 4, but I'd replace Grant with Andrew Johnson. I think Franklin Pierce also deserves mention as well as Herbert Hoover, and of course you can't forget Nixon. Grant is lower third, but it's important to remember how vitriolic and visceral the antipathy was against him in the former CSA.

Reagan is pretty much midfield, but only because we had so many stinkers in the 19th century.

Forgive me, but I am new at this form of discussion.

I read DRUDGE in the morning and was directed to this site regarding the 9-11 movie. You must think I am naive, but I don't even know the definition of a "troll."

I was only interested in educated discourse but found all this vitriol.

You fellows seem smart but terribly angry, perhaps just passionate.

You are correct, I know nothing about nuclear weapons and may have been out of order in suggusting their use.

Nonetheless, I do believe we should focus on protecting American citizens, not impress the world or the terrorists that we "maintain the moral highground."

It really is silly. Japan and Germany were led by evil people who we beat with "immoral" and unmerciful violence. They did not surrender because they respected our "morality." Also, note that we returned to our civilized standards once the job was done.

There are times, now is one, when we must set aside civility and just win this war.

Howard, Val, Worderbee, PW and others, I believe I have had enough of this debate. It has deteriorated into anger and name calling and that doesn't interest me.

Enjoy your discussions. (By the way, Kiwi is the name of my dog, and everyone knows PW means "pussy-wipped.")

[Duplicate deleted]

And even Republicans can't explain why they vote for Bush, even now.

What kind of bullshit statement is that? You don't live in a red state, do you?

You mean the one who got the Virgin records guy to kick in $3 billion to fight the global warming problem that Bush ignores? Is that who you mean?

Tom

He quite simply lacks human brain function.

Yet, he earned a Harvard MBA, governed the state of Texas for two terms and was twice the POTUS.

Since you haven't achieved the same level of accomplishment, we can only deduce that he possesses a bit more human brain function than you.

Apparently, high levels of human brain function are not requisites to blog here. I only have to read any of Sidney Blumenthal's blogs to know that.

"He was too impatient to get on with shock and awe to let them find out whether the WMDs were actually there. . ."

I wonder. Maybe he sent Ney to find out. Consider this sequence:

Background A:
. Ney pled guilty to accepting casino chip bribes in return for getting an arms dealer: (1) a US Visa and (2) a sanctions waiver on the sale of US aircraft parts from his front company FN Aviation, via Cyprus, *to* Iran.

Questions:
A-1. Is it true that the DOJ, in its charges against Ney, failed to name the Syrian-born arms trader, Fouad al Zayat?
A-2. If (A-1): would the further identification of Ney's ME intermediaries somehow point to high-level corruption within the Bush Justice Department?
A-3. If (A-2): was the corruption linked to a cover-up of the role of US & Russian Mafia state and/or non-state players in assisting the proliferation of WMD throug