The speech was just more of the same old "Be afraid, be afraid, but I'll protect you because I am the world's greatest incompetent boob."

I think it's pretty clear from this speech, from the Naval moves, and from the recent change of commanders that the moral midget is going to go after Iran, come hell or high water. If he leaves Iraq he'll have a harder time justifying his planned stupidity in Iran.

It's too bad that all those people, ours and theirs, have to die for this stupid, arrogant little s.o.b. I live for the day I can see him and Cheney, Rumsfeld, WOlfowitz, Perle, and all the others waiting their turn at the gallows. (Fat chance, when we can't get the Dems to even consider impeaching B & C, even with uncontestable evidence being rubbed in their faces. I guess hangings off the table too.)

I think your post points up the problem for Bush, today. He has been shown to be lying on so many occasions, that he can never say a thing and be trusted it is the truth. Whenever he speaks, I assume he's lying (notice, not being disingenuous). I just don't listen to him any more. It's the ultimate 'Boy cries wolf' situation.

I read the speech, and came away with a one fundamental question:

If this is the "new strategy", what was the old one?

Then I came across this - a post at the National Review of all places - which included the following:

"it struck me as a snow job, from an administration that [...] has no clue where to go from here."

AND

The central and most glaring contradiction is the implied threat to walk away... Yoked to the ringing declaration that, of course, we can't walk away.

And that sort of crystallized it a bit further, what Bush's speech represented. Last night, we weren't looking at a lame-duck president, we were looking at the president of a lame-duck nation.

At least while we are stuck in Iraq, that is.

I understand the concern about the Durbin response, but it's getting minimal coverage anyway. The press just shows pix of Reid looking upset about Bush and quotes the various presidential candidates. Of course, of the Democrats, Clinton remains the cagiest, beginning with a disclaimer even regarding opposition to the plan: "based on" the president's speech.... Oh, and Giuliani did have a response (supporting escalation, although with benchmarks), so Election Central's note there is no longer current.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I believe that there are reports about small numbers of U.S. troops already in Iran doing recon.

Link to Tom Ricks WaPo analysis

There is an Al-Qaeda of Sunni jihadist element in the insurgency, some homegrown and some foreign. But despite Bush's invocation of the Al-Qaeda threat, you'll notice that his plan last night contained few indications of what he plans to do about them. Instead more of the focus is on Baghdad and the Shiite militias.

Napolean declared war on Iran! I am beginning to think that this is not stubborness, on the part of the President, nor ignorance, nor bullying. I am beginning to believe the man is a meglomaniac. The airstrike in Somalia and now arrests in the Iranian embassy in Iraq. Maybe he figures if he starts a world war, we wont notice his incompetence, or maybe, God forbid, he is trolling and inciting, trying to get some wing of Al Qaeda to strike in the US and prove him right. Nothing he does now will suprise me.

J. McCutchen

Of course it makes no sense as a strategy to stabilize Iraq. Safe bet it will accomplish precisely the opposite. Not about Iraq. About dividing the Shia so and buying time to bomb Iran.

That's a definite. I believe Seymour Hersh is the one who reported that.

Tom

Resign or be impeached and convicted. Go on medical leave. Just get out of the White House. Take Cheney with you. Please, before we all go down the tubes.

Tom

Tom

Dan

According to an email from Stratfor this entire escalation is aimed at Iran. Their view is Sadr would need to crushed in order to bring calm to Iraq, and that 20,000 troops aren't enough to do that.

However, the Naval ships to the Gulf and the leaking of a number of statements from Israel as to their willingness to both go it alone and to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran are all part of a design to get Iran to undercut Sadr and to come to the bargining table.

This seems way too cleaver for Bush. Even if this is the plan it is not at all clear that this will ever work but this is an idea that does not require for the "surge" to work militarily within Iraq.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, for one thing, you made me [realize I forgot] about my own post! What killing Zarqawi did was help turn the face of al-Qaeda from mostly foreign-influenced, to a more "Iraqi" organization (with growing support).

So, in that respect, "al Qaeda" does have much to do with Iraq, but it's increasingly tied to the "insurgency." (The point of the post to which I linked is really all this is much more complex than most realize, certainly the Prez.)

My question/comment on this thread, and I should have been more clear, was related to the "bin Laden al-Qaeda," which has certainly grown beyond needing a central base of operations really anywhere, or even needing bin Laden.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I think what no has discussed, and for good reason, is the intangibles. Do the common citizens of Iraq feel more liberated now that Saddam is actually dead? Will there be a more free flowing source of credible information as to the whereabouts of the ring leaders, recuiters and terrorist? Does the same hold true for those that are now in control of the government there?

I think the military build up, and clean sweep using new 'credible' information will spell victory for our cause, and Iraq's future.

The main goal was to take oil money out of the hands of tyrants and terrorist. The Iraqi people now believe the tyrant is gone, and with the correct amount of propaganda, with help erraticate the terrorists.

Hmm, seizing documents and computers, possibly in violation of established law? Hey, it worked so well in this country for the NSA, why not try it in Irbil?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

He isn't going anywhere Tom...too many people he needs to kill.  And even if impeached and convicted he will get John Yoo to write a position paper that in time of war a president can't be removed.

The American people spoke clearly in November and it is just as clear the president doesn't give a rat's ass what the American people think.  Who is going to stop him?  I don't know if anyone can.  Especially since there so many Iranian people God wants him to kill next...

I  am confused. I thought that Sadr was one of the least likely of the Shite groups to be influeced by Iran.

Many posters have also pointed to the Iran/Syria portion of the speech as alarming yet not one of the contributors to TPM Cafe has seem fit to mention it. Nor have they discussed the possibilities/consequences of military action against those countries.I find that odd as this elephant has the potential to morph into a wooly mammoth on a rampage.

During MSNBC's post-speech coverage, both Matthews and Olbermann discussed it with Brian Williams and Tim Russert:

"OLBERMANN: Brian, within the realm of the rules set down in your briefing with the president today, did the subject of Iran and Syria, which sort of sprung out of the middle of that speech, in a speech that was ostensibly about what to do about the situation in Iraq and whether or not less or more was the better option, was that a surprise to you, or did you hear about that earlier today?

WILLIAMS: No, it came up, and on more than one occasion. And, again, this tour of the world was centered mostly in this one region.

Perhaps the most chilling thing the president said—he indicated that those who are asking for a kind of wholesale withdrawal from Iraq would, when we all got to our eighties or nineties, look back and say, “Well, that President Bush, you know, he was right.” And the president‘s indication, his inference was this, that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out.

And this was a kind of rare reassessment of his position. Every indication was given to us that there‘s no insulation, there‘s no delusional thinking going on—again, I‘m repeating their position—that the president went into tonight‘s speech clearly aware that, when he looks around for friends and allies, he sees very few individuals.

He expressed to us at one point his frustration that those expressing no position on the conflict in Iraq don‘t get called out for it. He expressed his frustration that others are free to say whatever they wish and repeated the constraints he‘s under as head of the free world.

So, yes, that part of the world came up in several different times and in different contexts.

OLBERMANN: Tim, let me follow up with you about Iran.

RUSSERT: Yes, Keith, can I add something on that?

OLBERMANN: Please, yes.

RUSSERT: Might be helpful, yes. In the discussion with his senior advisers, with the president, again, something I took away, that it‘s the president‘s thinking that he will not sit down with people that he refers to as tyrants until he has, quote, “leverage”...

WILLIAMS: Right.

RUSSERT: ... suggesting that he has to win the war in Iraq or secure Iraq, and then he doesn‘t have to go to Syria and Iran and, quote, “ask for anything.” That‘s the way he looks at this.

Secondly, there‘s a strong sense in the upper echelon of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue in the country and the world in a very acute way. And a prediction that, in 2008, candidates of both parties will have, as a fundamental campaign promise or premise, a policy to deal with Iran and not let it go nuclear. That‘s how significant Iran was today.

OLBERMANN: But, as you pointed out, there was a finiteness put to the

open-ended policy about Iraq that this government has propagated for the

last four or five years. But did we, at the same time, see in the region -

it‘s no longer open-ended in Iran—or no longer open-ended in Iraq, but it is now open-ended, perhaps, in the region, in Iran. We may be closing down this shop, but moving it next door?

RUSSERT: Terrific question, because, in fact, if Maliki and Iraq is not able to secure and stabilize his country, and it erupts into wholesale civil war, and spills over into Turkey, and spills over into Iran, and becomes a regional conflict, what then is the United States‘ position? And does that become a new front on the war on terror?

That is something that the president will not discuss. He said, “I‘m not going to Plan B, because if I go to Plan B, I‘ll have suggested that Plan A hasn‘t worked.” But it is something that must be on the minds of everyone tonight listening carefully to the president.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen, starting with Brian, the president did make that allowance tonight that mistakes have been made, and I‘m sure it will be a headline in most of the newspapers, especially the unfriendly newspapers, tomorrow.

But was that a tactical or an implementing mistake? Did he admit or offer any kind of guidance about his thinking about the initial decision to go to Iraq, the forward-leaning, preemptive approach he‘s taken towards the Middle East generally, Brian?

WILLIAMS: The tone, Chris, of this talk, and two of the last times I‘ve been in private confines with this president, was this, and this calls for a bit of interpretation on my part. Tim and I had the same conversation earlier today.

If you knew what we knew, if you saw the intel that is our daily bread that we dealt with on a daily basis, dot, dot, dot, that would go on to explain so much of it. And the president was clear on this.

And when I asked him at the end about something that referenced a large mistake, we were all kind of wrapping it up, and it occurred to me to ask him, “Did you see the videotape of Saddam‘s hanging?” He said, “Yes, I did. A member of my staff showed it to me.”

Before I could get out a follow-up, where does it rank in terms of the mistakes of this conflict, he said it ranks right below in importance Abu Ghraib, then went on to mention Haditha, which, in his view, was very damaging.

So this was kind of an attempt at a realpolitik for this White House, warts and all, recitation of what has preceded tonight, as well as what the future holds, as they see it.

MATTHEWS: Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.

RUSSERT: Chris, in terms of...

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Tim.

RUSSERT: Chris, in terms of Iraq and any doubts now looking back, as I was listening to the president and talking about the safe haven for terrorists and safe haven for Al Qaeda, similar to Afghanistan, my mind racing, saying, “Well, if we hadn‘t gone to war, that wouldn‘t be the case. Saddam would be there that many think is a buffer to Iran.”

He suddenly said, And by the way, yes, I‘m glad Saddam is gone, because if he was still there, he and Iran would be in a race to acquire a nuclear bomb. And if we didn‘t stop him, Iran would be going to Pakistan or to China and things would be much worse.

That is the way he sees the world. His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that was sound.

MATTHEWS: And it could be the rationale for going into Iran at some point.

RUSSERT: It‘s going to be very interesting to watch that issue. And we have to cover it very, very carefully and very exhaustively."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16578298/

The transcript ends at this point, curiously editing out Matthew's challenge to journalists to focus on the Iran/Syria aspects of the speech in their next day coverage.

Errors? Errors!? You've apparently been hiding under a rock with Bush so you don't get contaminated by facts. You need to unwrap the flag from your head so you can see the real world instead of that ideological, hero-worshipping fog you apparently live in. Yeah, there were alternatives. Your scummy little hero wasn't interested in them. Maybe you need to listen to somebody besides Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh and read something that isn't from Regnery Publishing.

As for 'the most powerful nation in the world', how about the most pathetic nation in the world for the last six years? Any nation that behaves the way this country has under Bush isn't powerful - it's weak, it's sick, and it's pathetic. The guy waving the biggest gun around the room isn't the most powerful guy. He's the most scared, and usually the most inadequate and incompetent.

As for victory for the Iraqi people, sure, let's just kill another half million or so, and don't forget to include the women and children. That's going to make them feel really grateful and me feel really safe. Yah sure you betcha.

As for treason, there's a much better case to be made against the neocons and Bush for that, I'm sure. Nobody has done more to bring this country down than they have. But we don't need to get after them for that. War crimes will be just fine. Hundreds of thousands of people dead to satisfy that scrimy, lying little scumbag's ego, yeah, that deserves a rope around his neck, him and the rest of them.

To envision the geography and demographics of Baghdad military operations check out the colored map in the linked Economist article. The map shows neighborhoods as mainly Sunni, mainly Shia, turning Sunni and turning Shia.

An interesting note about what has helped in the past and which is not true in Baghdad:

These tactics have had success in some areas, particularly rural towns where American forces can monitor access routes and where tribal chiefs know what is happening.

Who's behind the Iran and Syria part of the speech, per Andrew Sullivan:

I have a feeling that this is less a Rove speech than a Cheney speech. I don't believe Cheney thinks this anemic gesture is a game-changer. Even he hasn't become that unhinged. So what else can it mean?

My gut tells me that this speech was, in fact, a serious military warning to Syria and Iran. This president may have in mind a future escalation far greater and more explosive than anything we're doing in Baghdad. The real reason we're not withdrawing is that we are keeping our options open for a wider war. And the president, as always, is not being honest about his real intentions.

I hate to post so much text, but in this case I'm going whole hog as the embargoed conversation was between John Bolton and a "small group of supporters" (AIPAC and the delightfully dumb Pammy from Atlas Shrugs).

Pammy was informed by AIPAC's NY office that the conversation was off the record after she had posted her version of a transcript.
She subsequently removed it but for now it's still in googles' cache.

Clemons mentions it on his blog and it's a real eye opener for the insider's look at how we use the UN and hints of future planning re Iran and Hezbollah. (Negroponte mentioned them today warning that they may seek to mobilize against us if they feel we are targeting them. One of Bush's "networks"?)

I've added the "B"s to help clarify what Pammy ascribes to Bolton and "P"s to indicate her contributions:

"I have to say because I am a private citizen and a free man again - these are my personal views now. These sanctions resolutions are very disappointing." John Bolton 1/5/07

P. John Bolton spoke with a small group today and I was fortunate to be among them. He discussed the full range of issues confronting Americans and issues of keen interest to the Atlas reader.

Ambassador Bolton spoke first of the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Apparently Moon is an unusual individual in that most of his diplomatic career he has been involved with the United States. He has spent a good amount of time in here through his diplomatic career, therefore it's a safe bet that Ban will certainly think/act positively towards us. His long professional association has been directed at having a good US/South Korean relationship.

The politics that lead to his suggestion were that it was "Asia's turn." (although this was not to the US way of thinking.) How ver he got there, Bolton thought of all the Asian names put forward that he was the best of the candidates. So there is some small hope eh?

Ambassador Bolton's remarks follow in italics. Money quote on Moon or more accurately Kofi?

B. 'I hope that he, more likely than the rest of them, avoids the temptation of thinking that now that he's Secretary General that he is G-d's gift to humanity. It's s a problem in New York that some secretary generals' have had. And I'm hoping Ban Ki Moon will be immune to it.

Picking a Secretary General is a lot like nominating someone to the Supreme Court. You can think you have a pretty good idea of the kind of person he is going to be and the kind of job he is going to do but once they become Secretary General they're in a different position and a lot of predictions have been wrong in the past.'

P. He goes on to list number of positive and negative indications in the early days of Ban's term. Listen to the audio below in case I don't tracribe it all.
On Ban's recent comments that he thinks the "single most important problem he wants to look at is the Israeli/Palestinian question" (I blogged on it somewhat unforgivinglyhere.) It's not something that is in Ban's dominion...........

B. 'As Secretary General he has a role in the quartet which is probably something we should not have set up to begin with. But it's there. I think what he is reflecting in that comment is the prevailing conventional wisdom at the UN. That gee if only we could solve the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict and solve in it in a particular way than every other problem in the Middle East would disappear . Now that of course is ridiculous and while I am unhappy about the problem I would not necessarily read it as a reflection of long and deep thought on the Middle East. I think it is passing on what he is hearing in briefings ....It's something we need to work on and try to turn around.'

P. Bolton was encouraged by something Ban said in respect to Saddam Hussein and developments in Iraq in recent days. When Ban was asked about Saddam's execution;

B. 'When asked about the execution of Saddam Hussein he said, well this is basically a matter of decision for each member state. That's a dramatic change from his predecessor who opined on every moral issue that came his way. To me this is not a question of whether you favor the death penalty or oppose the death penalty this is a question of the proper role of United Nations and more particularly the proper role of the Secretary General. I think Ban Ki Moon is right. It is a decision for each government, each UN member whether they favor the death penalty or don't.'

[..]

B. 'I have no doubt if Kofi Annan was still the Secretary General he would have criticized the Iraqis for opposing the death penalty and given a little speech on the international rule of law and so on and so forth. I thought this was a very positive sign..... because of the recognition it expresses about his proper role and the role of the UN. He is the Secretary General. He should be a servant of the member states. It's an intergovernmental organization. We tell the Secretary what to do and the Secretary should then carry it out. They're not some independent decision making authority with their own legitimacy and power.'

P. Bolton then goes on to describe key appointments that Ban is making and what they indicate.
On Iran and the sanctions;

B. 'I have to say because I am a private citizen and a free man again - these are my personal views now. These sanctions resolutions are very disappointing. It is not as tough as I would have liked to have seen it. In many respects the Russians did an outstanding job from their point of view in protecting Iran in narrowing the scope of the sanctions in limiting the effectiveness of many of the things that we wanted to try and do to prevent the Iranians from continuing to make progress on their nuclear ballistic missile programs.

I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect. Although they've passed a resolution in Parliament to reevaluate their relationship with the IAEA they have not rejected the sanctions resolution. They have not done anything more dramatic. such as withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty or throwing out inspectors of the IAEA which I had hoped they would do ---that that kind of reaction would produce the counter reaction which would be more beneficial to us. So I think their very cautious, the Iranian's cautious reaction so far shows that they're not terribly worried by this sanctions resolution and that the Russians have counseled them that they actually came away better than might have been expected and therefore their reaction needs to be low key.

I think it needs to play out a little more. But if in fact that remains the Iranian reaction then I think we are going to confront very quickly the fact that this resolution is not it going to slow them down or stop them in their continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability That is is discouraging obviously but something that is going to require a lot of attention and its going to have to compete with the obvious priority that will be given to Iraq here over the next several weeks. It's obviously something the Iranians will place close attention ..what we do in Iraq and that could have an impact on them as well if the President moves in the direction that is looks like he is moving in -- to increase American forces in order to more to suppress the terrorist activity that is being carried out Iraq.'

P.The continuing problem is Lebanon ...............

B. 'The continuing problem of Lebanon. Although it's been quiet there I don't think there is been any change in the intention of then Iranians and the Syrians acting through Hezbollah to bring down the Democratic government. I am not quite sure I can fully explain why the relative level of quiet. There may be some maneuvering going on. But this is something that even though it has not been terribly active, not been in the news, I don't think we can turn our attention away from .......because the strategic priority for of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah to take out the Siniora government remains very high. We will see more activity on that front in the very near future.'

P. What Bolton is very worried about:

B. 'What we were seeing in the months coming to the end of last year was an increased willingness of part of the Arab league and many other states to use the General Assembly as a forum to attack Israel when they were faced with American vetoes of resolutions condemning Israel - they took their case to the General Assembly where there is no veto by the US or other permanent members of the Security Council and there is a guaranteed anti-America Anti-Israeli majority. Whether there is a trend that is going to grow we can't tell. But I am very worried about it. And I am worried that because of their frustration with our ability to stop these harmful efforts in the Security Council that the level of activity which could be quite injurious in the General Assembly could increase. It's something we all need to keep our eyes on in the months ahead.'

P. I asked the first question concerning the continuing Islamization of the UN and our ability to contain if not stop it. The Organization of Islamic countries is a bloc. It's more than a religion, it's a political project. If there was a Conference of Christian countries there would be hell to pay. Can it be stopped?

B. 'It's a very good question. The UN for many years has relied principally a series of regional groups to aggregate their preferences and make their voices louder. You have a number of anomalies that relate to the Middle Est that are not found elsewhere. You have not only the Arab League as a regional group but the OIC is which obviously broader than the Arab League but whose policies on the Middle East are functionally the same if not more problematic in many respects. I think this is part of the institutional bias against Israel thats locked into the UN. It's a very serious problem because many of these countries have enormous problems of their own that ought to be the subject for example of human rights scrutiny for the abuses of human rights that perpetrate on the own people are able to use the power that they accumulate by being part of these groups to single out Israel and put Israel and the United S tates continually on the defensive responding to their initiatives and not being able to make progress on things we prefer to do. This is an enormous problem and I'm glad you pointed it out. It may sound , I don't know what the New York analog of being inside the Beltway's but it has much more profound implications than just internal UN debate. This is something that provides these countries with a forum, with a stage where they can magnify their opinions in a very significant way.'

P. Might I note here that every subsequent question was proceeded by thanking the Ambassador profusely ("from the bottom of my heart") for his service. I am telling you - he is all that and a bag of chips. It was moving.
The following question asked about additions to the Security Council.

B. 'On January the 1st, five new non permanent members came on the Security Council and that means we are going to have a different council and in some respects a much more difficult environment on Middle East.'

P. The two that are quite significant are Tanzania, being replaced by South Africa who is very close to the non aligned nations and the other important change is Japan being replaced by another Muslim country, in fact the largest Muslim country, Indonesia.

B. 'These shifts are going to make it more difficult and more challenging in the next two years.'

P. Much discussionfrom the mext question. Whyn not leave the UN once and for all and create a new power base that would have more of an effect and match our requirements. Bolton all but admitted the UN was, after countless attempts, not reformable despite his herculean efforts and those that came before him (He didn't say Hercules, I did.) Even incremental reform is next to impossible.
He does suggest;

B. ".....looking to competitors. There are a lot of ways to solve international problems. There are a lot of organizations. There are alternatives to the UN now. There might well be other alternatives such as the Caucus of Democracy ideas. We believe pretty strongly in our country in the values and the competition in the marketplace and I think increased competition in the market for international problem solving and it might be good for the UN.'

P. The best alternative, IMAO, is here. Next query was on how closely the UN had been monitoring the agreements on Lebanese Israeli border and in the event of violation, what is being done to enforce it (resolution 1701);

B. 'I have to say I am going to give you a pretty discouraging answer on that point. I think that the enhanced UNIFIL which was agreed to with a lot of fanfare as past of resolution 1701 has not been successful in fully accomplishing the mission that we wanted to give to it. There's no doubt Syria and Iran have very substantially resupplied rearmed Hezb'Allah. The UNIFIL people have done essentially nothing about it. Those shipments across the Lebanese Syrian border have been reported by the UN itself not something that comes just from the United States.

It could be we are coming to a day of reckoning here on resolution 1701 and whether the cessation of hostilities that was established between Hezb'Allah and Israel is going to remain acceptable.

I would hope the United States in the near future begins to take the next step that we made a conscious decision not to make in 1701 and that is disarming Hezb'Allah.

The unspoken premise of 1701 was first you stop them from getting external assistance by imposing an arms embargo but then the next step is to disarm Hezb'allah and we have not done anything on that. We are at the point , we have got to move to that second step.'

P. Next questioner gave a most outstanding tribute (evoking Churchill) to Mr. B, listen to it.
He asked what Bolton thought of his potential replacement Zalmay Khalilzad. Bolton spoke quite well of him. Very bright, dedicated doing hard time on two of the toughest, dangerous assignments the President has asked anyone to pursue and he has given all too personally to serve the United States. Quite honorable on his part.

Bolton has never talked with him on Middle East issues so he has no sense of where he will come out on that. If he does in fact turn out to be the nominee, he will support him in every way he can in the transition, at whatever length of time that person chooses, and will consult for as long as that person needs.

B. 'I hope all of you, whomever my successor is will be in touch with him, talk to him about the issues.I t's very important. We do not have foreign policy in the United States made only in the State department. We have a populist kind of foreign policy making style I's very important to be in touch.................'
http://tinyurl.com/ycvfj6

Will there be a more free flowing source of credible information as to the whereabouts of the ring leaders, recuiters and terrorist? ...The Iraqi people now believe the tyrant is gone, and with the correct amount of propaganda, with help erraticate the terrorists.

You understand that the "terrorists" make up a small fraction of what's going on in Iraq, no? And that Saddam is now a martyr in the eyes of many of Iraqis?

Aren't you really projecting your hopes and dreams about Iraq more than reflecting the reality on the ground there?

Not to be all psychological and all...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I suppose the deadline for changing his grade has passed.  :-) 

aMike

I wouldn't take it too hard Tom...some people are just beyond help, lol. ;)

Lord, lord, lord... I haven't seen so much wishful thinking packed into a post this short in a long time.

Why anyone would think that Saddam was still relevant is beyond me.

Wow. You managed to avoid addressing a single substantive point in the original post in order to attack a perspective made of straw. Congrats. My first "Troll".

TJ -

Consider reading about the subject of who joins and why. What passes for conventional wisdom is less than wise. 

This cscs Foreign Policy table thread deals with the subject and in particular a Geo. Packer article.  cscs' blog has some additional highlights.

Apropos, from Packer's piece:

Terms like “totalitarianism” and “Islamofascism,” she said, which stir the American historical memory, mislead policymakers into greatly increasing the number of our enemies and coming up with wrongheaded strategies against them. “That’s not what the insurgents call themselves,” she said. “If you can’t call something by its name—if you can’t say, ‘This is what this phenomenon is, it has structure, meaning, agency’—how can you ever fight it?” In other words, even if we think that a jihadi in Yemen has ideas similar to those of an Islamist in Java, we have to approach them in discrete ways, both to prevent them from becoming a unified movement and because their particular political yearnings are different.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

If you would like to provide summaries on my previous posts, make sure that you relate that your response still has not stated your position on the support of Hezbollah as a terrorist group. You are still silent on the point.

Make that accused *two* TPMCafe members of supporting terrorists.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Consider it your third opportunity to clarify your point and remove any doubt.

Welcome to the club. I consider it an honor to be on TJ's bad list and you should too. We must be doing something right.

Tom

Once again, Speedy recovery to your nephew.

User Rating

TJKING 1

Our friend TJ is now taking to abusing the ratings system.

Yay.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Good points. I look forward to hearing about it.

Recommending the murder of the President of the United states is a crime. I am not surprised tlees and cville would chime in to support you. Your bitterness and hatred has consumed you. Do you realize how you are effecting the image of the Left in America. You are creating a party of screaming hatred.

KJ, I have seen you in the past type something in the heat of the moment and then later retract it because you were trying to restrain yourself. I respect that. Even now, you are choosing your words more carefully than these people. The guy earlier that was slurring gays merely to "get off" on the thrill of hurting someone, you trashed him and did so for the right reasons.

You bring up impeachment, well at least that is constitutional and legal as wrong as I think it might be, but its within our system, so its still a limit. When the left crosses over into the kind of hate that is blinding, hyperbolic, and consuming as that gay basher, or this guy, or the Vince Foster conspiracy theorists of the right, it threatens to turn the left into a Nixonian cauldron of darkness.

Nixon said: "Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

I'm glad to see your restraint and your reluctance to out do the kill Bush guy.

Since it was Zarqawi who blew up the Sammara Mosque what benefit was there to keeping him alive? Al Qaeda is violently opposed to Shiites. Sadr's increased use of force stepped up after the bombing of the Mosque.

What evidence is there that Zarqawi's death changed the charater of al Qaeda in Iraq?

Bin Laden had been moving around the Middle East long before the invasion of Iraq. He, and al Qaeda have links to the Muslim Brotherhood which is based in Egypt.

Bush's errors are so numerous but his greatest seems to be focused on state sponsored terrorism. What seems much more dangerous and potent is trans-national terrorism that is organized around different views of Islam.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

What evidence is there that Zarqawi's death changed the charater of al Qaeda in Iraq?

Follow the link in my comment. The New York Times Week In Review last weekend had a whole page graphic on the changing nature of the insurgency, including how al Qaeda In Iraq now has a more legitimate, home-grown membership, and how they are linking up with many other Iraqi groups.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"A" for effort.

I'm sure you'll receive a thoughtful response from the troll. 

It is a false hope that open combat is the flame that will draw the Al Qaeda moth to it in numbers more significant than its presence elsewhere.

See: Spain, London, etc...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I was neither. I was paying you a compliment for what its worth. I was not addressing the grievances that make someone lose civility, I was complimenting you for attempting at times to remain civil unlike the guy that is advocating killing Bush. Although you are against capital punishment, the fact that you seem to be deriving satisfaction in the fantasy of his hanging, makes me wonder if my compliment was a mistake.

Rather than dwell on it, I hold out hope that my previously positive view of your attempts to keep this an exchange of "ideas" was not "insensible".

I hold out hope that my previously positive view of your attempts to keep this an exchange of "ideas" was not "insensible".
Be sure to let me know right away when you have one.

You are the only person in this thread with murder on the mind, but I understand that it is beyond you to comprehend that.

If Bush kills and tortures, that's just tough; but when we dream of justice, that's murder. Mr. King, you have not only inhaled the right-wing dope, you have made brownies from it and washed them down with the bong water.

Peace?!? I denounce your idea of peace just as thoroughly as I denounce your idea of respect.

Amen, KJLiberal!

As for Mr. King, I despise Bush and his crew for all the reasons KJ has noted here. But I did not advocate lynching him, which is pretty much the tenor of his treatment of the Iraqi people and soon the Iranians and anyone else he thinks has wronged him and his. Lynching is extralegal. Hanging is a punishment for crimes, and Bush's actions warrant trial for war crimes. It is on those grounds that I would like to see him tried and, if found guilty, hung. I think the context should have made that clear. Apparently not.

No, the context does not make it clear. Talking casually about hijackings or bombs on a plane is not excusable even if it is in what you think is the proper context, nor is recommending the killing of a President. If you believe a President should face a constitutional challenge of some sort you need to say so. Rallying others to have him killed is a federal crime and as I have said to KJ, no excuse about your emotional rantings and frustrations about his sound policies excuses your negligence.

As Elvis would say, "Thank ya, Thank ya, Thank ya very much."

Tom

Now you are saying that the brave Americans that sign up for the military are Mentally deficient. Maybe you can deny it first and then claim it was a "botched joke". Another Democrat that "loathes" the military. Surprise. Real class.

Or even better, you like his sound policies so much? Go down to the recruiting office and sign up for military service in Iraq. 

Ah yes. TJKING -- blogging over here, so he doesn't have to fight them over there. 

Or is that she?

Whatever. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Don't take it so personal, friend. Anytime a resident of the great state of Wingnuttia is soundly and thoroughly trashed in an argument about anything -- Iraq, rule of law, wiretapping, football, or favorite flavor of ice cream -- they are trained to crouch in a corner and respond, "Oh yeah? Well, you hate America, you hate the Troops, and your mother dresses you funny."

...and we certainly want to be fair.

Oh Yeah?

Still engaging the troll, KJ?

A glutton, you are...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

That is a perfectly accurate description of the value of what you return.

OK. I'll tell you. There was an alternative - don't invade Iraq in March 2003.

Tom