J. McCutchen

This should finish Maliki. Last week the pariliament and a bridge in the Tigris. Now this?

These attacks have come as the Mahdi Army and other shiite militias have pretty much melted away, going to ground, I suspect in order to get the lay of the new "security" plan first. Even as death squad activity picks up again, Shiite neighborhoods have been subjected to relentless, bloody attack for months, this being the latest.

Sadr put over a hundred thousand in the streets two weeks ago. He has reportedly effected an accomodation with Sistani. Having withdrawn from the government, he positions himself well against a failed Occupation client, both the government and its sponsor.

The Surge has done nothing to arrest the slide deeper into chaose. The government of Iraq no longer exists. It cannot protect its own Shiite base. The militias protected that Sadriya market. Its now been bombed twice.

I believe that before the year is out, certainly by early next year, Sistani will issue a fatwa against collaboration with the Occupation and call for its withdrawal. Sadr will, by popular demand, enforce the exit visa

Given the hypothetical of recurrent shootings on campus there would be a chorus of demands for total civilian disarmament. That's a lot easier a demand to make than biting down on a bitter pill of reality and calling for an immediate end to a war. In the first case a person can see him or herself as being on the side of life. In the second, there is an undercurrent of fear that one might be seen as unpatriotic or characterized publicly as "stabbing our troops in the back.'

I am most appalled at the MSM for using the V-Tech massacre to dampen coverage of the day's carnage in Iraq. The worst of it can be found on the CNN, MSNBC, and worst of all FoxNews (where the story didn't even rate a sub-headline font), because each is using images of Cho from the package of material he sent to NBC. Not since Mark David Chapman's appearance on the cover of People clasping a copy of _Catcher in the Rye_ have I seen such an irresponsible reproduction of celebrity for a killer. Cho may be dead, but thousands of other troubled youth will not be dissuaded by seeing his dream of infamy posthumously rewarded. This is disgusting.

You misunderstood. Surge referred to a surge in violence, a surge in bombings and murders, a surge in the mountain of Iraqi dead everyday. After the long, obligatory somber story on the VT shootings, where the grief of these kids and their families were again exploited for sensational value, then the report proudly showing the killer’s sick pictures and video was thrown to, my local anchor adopted almost an upbeat tone as he briefly mentioned the hundreds killed in Iraq.

233 is insane!

Could the US military possibly be more ineffective if it tried?

If the surge was meant as a grand display of impotence, then it's working great!

If Bush's objective was to humiliate our country on the world stage, then he's doing a heckuva job!

I bet the relatives of the 233 are impressed...

What percentage of Americans is going to ballistic if I say that the situation in Baghdad is worse for Sunnis and Shiites now than it was under Sadaam? Probably fairly low. In Kurdistan the siuation was already good before March 2003 because of the no-fly zones. In the south Sadaam isn't slaughtering Shiites but there is still some violence.

Tom

Larry,
Thank you for pointing out the irony of the VA Tech killings juxtaposed with the ongoing killing of innocents in Iraq.

Has anyone in the MSM mentioned this? I doubt it. But it was one of the first things I thought of. Actually, one of the first things after I was able to verify that the one VA Tech student I know was ok. It was a shaky hour and a half for me.

But everyday I get upset with the blase' attitude of the news readers and pundits who spout these numbers as if they refer to objects and not people.
Does anyone in this country care about the Iraqi people and this hell we have rained down on them. It reminds me of the Vietnam war when adults seemed to think of Vietnamese as "gooks" and thus did not care about those who died. Of course, they also seemed to think all our soldiers were potheads and not worthy of their caring either.

The more things change ...

I think that americans would agree to that because bush's poll numbers didn't shoot up after saddamm's execution. everyone I talked to saw it as "another body on a big pile."

even the conservatives, with children in the military, see that they aren't coming home and that would be a sure sign of success.

Ummm... the Democratic position on the war is to continue it, while making tsk-tsk noises that it really ought to a year from now, or a year and a half, or longer if the President thinks it's going well.

That in no way accords with the polls I've seen - showing a large majority of Americans wanting an END to the war.

You mean like Bush announcing that he still supports the right to bear arms (one of the few he hasn't trampled) before the final toll was announced? I realize that gun control advocates were all over this from the get go, but that is what advocates do. As President his thoughts should have been exclusively on the victims and their families. To make an announcement like that during such a press conference was gratuitous politicking. For God's sake, George. You still have over a year, don't you think you could wait until a bill is submitted before shoring up your base?

J. McCutchen

I've ranted hereabouts for nearly two years, railing against the Democratic Wing of the War Party and its fellow traveling marmots..you'll get no quarrel from me about that.

However, the "Democratic position" now is withdrawal timetable with appropriations cut off - in short the very position you appear to advocate and the CNN poll question.

I don't have the exact wordiung at hand and I cannot stand the CNN website.

I am sure you'll find it...

While I don't disagree with your many findings, I find it alarming that you all are so delighted to see our Marines struggling.

Why are you so heavily invested in America's defeat?

Geez Kiwi, get with the program. It's because we hate America. Yes, we hate America. There, its out. Not only that, but we hate Christmas. And heterosexuality. And bunnies. And puppy dogs.

You want the truth, Kiwi? *We* elected George W. Bush. We hate America so much that we made sure the stupidest man on Earth was elected President. And it wasn't enough for us that he would be stupid. We hated America so much that we made sure to find a pathological sadist as well for Vice-President.

We know that if only we could put someone like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush into office, then something like 9/11 was guaranteed to happen. We made 9/11 happen, by making Bush happen. We made Katrina happen.

And what's our master plan? We're going to destroy America, through George W. Bush. We'll resist just enough so no one will blame us as he burns it all down.

And then, Kiwi, it'll be your turn. We're going to sneak up on you one night and make you an ACLU Card Carrying Lesbian! In a same sex marriage! Then we'll all have a great time dancing around the bonfire, roasting the heads of boy scouts like marshmallows on sticks, masturbating with crucifixes and singing Islamic songs.

So there you go.

We're under your bed right now.

Good answer!

Delighted with our Marines struggling? Are you out of your mind? I'm sickened by each and every death of a U.S. soldier in a mindless, meaningless war. Sending the Marines to do police work is like sending them out to paint a house with a hammer. Wrong tools for the wrong mission.

Don't praise too quickly. He didn't elect anyone, because he's a Canadian, not a U.S. citizen with the power to vote. Right Valdron? You can't really say "we" can you? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now that analysis I can agree with 100%. Policework doesn't beat an insurgency, and isn't traditionally Marine Corps work, although the Marines started out leading the LTL weapons testing and application during the Clinton years as if police actions were going to be a leatherneck job, and Marine General Krulak was touting the three-block war. I'd really like you to read this article by BBC's Jonathan Marcus talking with Krulak then and anticipating the guerilla war and characterizing what Iraqi forces were going to force, and their strategy in beating US and British forces:

Comment: The 'three-block' war

Larry, how consistently has the US fought a counter-insurgency, or anti-guerilla campaign?

Is the three block war a failed concept? Was Krulak wrong, or just denied the leadership support needed?

Has the constant change in command damaged the ability to do that?

Could energy interests have directed Cheney to give counsel to "throw the war" by shuffling commanders so that the installation of another strong man collaborating with US energy interests could takeover while it looked like we couldn't control it?

If you were in command of U.S. forces in Iraq now because everyone else quit and all of your backseat driving finally came to the front seat with you being responsible, what approach would you take tactically? Assume your government was still divided and not providing the most sage guidance about timelines, exit strategies or exit-objectives.

You take the job because you believe you could help the troops. You've got Petraus' job. They call you in. Alright General Johnson, we've given up. Everyone else has quit, we hate to do it, but we're asking your advice, despite what a thorn in our side you've been since you left government service. Cheney has quit. The president has turned his attention to the domestic agenda, washing his hands of Iraq.

What would you counsel? Leave immediately and let the Iraqis self-determine with a civil war? Or some other choice, or set of choices? What about the fallout of an 'all hell breaks loose' scenario?

Could it get worse? What are your orders for the best possible outcome?

These are the sort of questions I want to hear addressed.

J'applaud du bout des doigts.

Oooo ... Maybe I should have placed a little smiley there ... Naw...

~OGD~

I'll do it for you.

(o:

It seems you need one. 

I guess I learned from the wrong teachers, if this is the successful splurge of George the W and Co. (LLWC) TM PNAC

See, there were these simple chapters I read that I thought were wise, but maybe...the guy just didn't get in the Texas Air National Guard and sell off Texas Ranger's fine player. But I digress.

Master Sun-Tzu said:
Waging War
-----------------------
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

(no announced victory by Admin and acceptable Gens.)

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. (Bush's Soaring deficit my great-great-great-...you get it, grandchildren will be paying)

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

(pretty much sums up Sadr and crew, the supposed Al-qaida in iraq, and the civil war that's broken out)

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

(dweedle G "mission accomplished" and tweedle dick "greeted as liberators", GOP "stay the course")

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

(stay the course)

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted
with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

(champaign division, 5 deferments, and a bunch of puke to boot)

10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army
to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

(and if you haven't noticed, gas prices are a real bitch right now...and we make the stuff down here)

11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.

(check please!)

12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

(July 14, 1789: "cake anyone?")

13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion
of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

(with onset global warming, Katrina will look like a sneeze)
_______

16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must
be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

(walter reed anyone?)

17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

(abu ghraib anyone?)

18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one's own strength.

(yep, that's working out well, how many battalions do we have ready? regiments? individual cops who can at least stop the speeding trucks as they crash into markets?)

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

(or photo ops, kick backs from halliburton, a chance to just hate liberals again, to achieve your aims at the Baku pipeline, or your damn library at SMU)

20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

(insert your imagination of my best GWB sluring impersa, "i'm the decider, I'm the decider, kook kook a cho")

-------------
gotta go turn the TV off, the vomitorium on legs, Dennis Miller, just appeared on the tube, and I can't afford to throw another brick from this desk in emergencies.

cs-

think

You are so right.
The similarities and differences of our national, and of our government’s response to “our deaths” as opposed to “their deaths” is appalling, illogical, anti-Christ’s teachings, arrogant, etc.

We don’t even care enough about the Iraqi people, whom we are “saving, to make an accurate count of their deaths. Do American parents feel the loss of a child more than and Iraqi or Afgan parent? We act as though that is what we think.

The violent death of 33 innocent Americans is a greater tragedy than the deaths of 60 to 600 thousand innocent Iraqis? Which is making the greater mark on the history of the world?

The sociopathic sickness that allows one man to justify taking the lives of strangers is not greatly different than the sociopathic sickness of governments that justifies the taking of strangers homelands, and lives, and sometimes entire cultures.

To add to the social sickness we, through our news media and politicians, aggrandize the killers, justifying their self-serving, murderous rationales. We repeat their sick words and splay their pictures as icons of fame and stature. Thus fertilizing the ground for the growth of the next political “little Corporal” or social looser, to choose violence as the ladder to fame.

How sick is it for the killer of 600,000 “Them” to make a photo-op of the killing of 33 “Ours.”

To the extent that last month's Iraq spending bill represents the "Democratic position:" (pdf)

(1) The bill gives full props and power to the CiC. §§1908(a), 1909, allows him to certify "progress," similar to Reagan's certifications of "human rights progress" in Guatemala in the '80s, AND allows an indefinite deployment of an indefinite number of troops in Iraq indefinitely under FOUR (count 'em) separate missions. §1904(f).

(2) Out of the $120-some billion in the bill, only about $10 billion is set to expire in 9/08. More of that is earmarked for Afghanistan than for Iraq.

(3) Another several billion dollars in funding is set to expire 9/09, which is utterly symbolic since spending bills are good for only two years anyhow.

(4) Deadlines on spending merely encourage the Administration to spend the money faster. Then come back for more. Duh. Remember the Great White Fleet? Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the Navy around the world in a show of force. Congress refused to fund the mission. So as CiC, Roosevelt deployed the Navy to just sail. And, when they ran out of money in Japan, left it up to Congress whether they wanted to fund the return trip or not.

And let's not forget the Party pressure on the handful of Representatives who opposed the bill on anti-war grounds.

So, what is the "Democratic position," again?

"No Iraqi Shia with any sense trusts the Maliki government or the Americans to protect them."

Because they cannot. I see so many responses talking of how pulling out is tantamount to defeat.
On the premise that reality is what remains even though you stop believing in something, WE ARE DEFEATED. We were defeated when the inadequate plans were drawn up and executed. We were defeated when Shinseki (sp?) was not listened to. We were defeated when the American public was not given a share of the responsibility for this war and told to make a sacrifice for it.
Defeat is already here. It is not something that "will happen."
The current plan is to teach the Iraqis to provide their own security. How can you teach something that you do not know how to do yourself???????

Folks we have been defeated in this endevour and the responsibility for that defeat lies at the feet of George W Bush. And just so we don't get into an Alice in Wonderland thing here, I do not mean the kind of responsibility that I have seen GWB "accept" before.

J. McCutchen

I understand but c'mon...Bush "certifying" progress in the Iraq war and Reagan in Nicaragua are hardly comparable restrictions are they now?

I was afraid you might have raised something I saw this morning and marshall substantive support for your argument. The Dems reverting to type have proposed that the "deadlines" be "advisory". The oxymoron boggles the mind but it also violates the J. McCutchen Cardinal Rule for dealing with GWB -

The only way to negotiate with Bush is to just say NO

And I found the CNN poll. Democrats get some spine or grab some pine

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pessimism about Iraq has continued to mount, even before the news of Wednesday's bombings in Baghdad.
In the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken April 10-12, 69 percent of Americans say things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who thought things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October. (Full poll results [PDF])
The public's view: it's not working. Only 29 percent of Americans believe that sending additional troops to Iraq will make it more likely the U.S. will achieve its goals there. Only 21 percent believe the U.S. and its allies are winning; the prevailing view (62 percent) is that neither side is winning.
Democrats can claim to have to the force of public opinion behind them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said before meeting with President Bush, "the president must recognize that the American people, the military all over America and majorities in both the House and Senate have said the President must change course."....

GW Bush is too dense and butterfingured to have contrived and produced a quagmire of such heroic proportions; that honor lies at the feet of Wolfowitz, Feith and the Neo-Cons infesting The President's and Vice President's offices in the Executive offices.

Meanwhile Wolfie and Dougie others are enjoying new positions of honor (the arrogant Wolfowitz is also abusing his WB position) just as if they had never plunged this nation into a tragedy that exceeds Vietnam in the destruction of this nation's resources and credibility.

IMO There is only entity that considers itself a one clear winner from the carnage wrought in the middle east...and in that they too are disastrously mistaken. There are no winners nor will their likely be when the score is totaled, sum zero games run for the benefit of a tiny minority rarely produce any winners.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

That would be "Professor Feith" of Georgetown University, no doubt.  Who was it that called him the stupidest man he ever met?

Jan

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."...see Wikipedia.

Sound familiar?

Stuff happens. Freedom's untidy. Free people can commit crimes and do bad things.
D. Rumsfeld

Yep.

You're right on that one. 

J. McCutchen

Senate Leader Snares Coveted Award

2007 George Washington I-chopped-it-down Award for Truth in Politics to Harry Reid

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), said Thursday.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists

Rumsfeld happened. His mind is untidy. Secretaries of Defense can commit war crimes and do bad things such as helping to deceive a country into a war of choice.

Tom

OK, my whole post disappeared and I don't feel like re-writing it. Jan

Been ignorant on how one might view Maddie Albright for the campaigns in East Europe during 90s, or other policies. Frankly I was a busy young man trying to feed my family and grow up to get a grip on that. I was gettin fat off the land, politically, peace time, or something. When the dipshit gov from Tejas, stupid enough to trade the Texas Ranger's finest player,...destroyed our education system...was running for pres, I woke up again.

But I don't know the complexities of what Albright was doing. Love to hear what people think.

cs

ps - i don't recall recalling recollections of recalls in my memory at this time and space of remembering my memories of recalls. a gonzales - poet laureate

I wish the Japanese had never attacked Pearl Harbor.

I wish Hitler hadn't declared war on the U. S.

I wish OBL had not flown the planes into the WTC and Pentagon.

As Karl Rove wisely said yesterday,``I wish the war were over,I wish the war never existed... History has given us a challenge. It is a challenge which we will at our own peril ignore.''

We can't panic and "GET OUT" when it becomes difficult. History won't let us.

Are you telling me the greatest country in the history of the earth with the bravest Marines ever assembled can't beat these thugs in dirty night shirts?

The Marines call the "insurgents" tactical efforts "suicide by Marine."

True, they can kill some with booby traps and snipers, so did the Japanese and Germans toward the end of WWII.

If the our country supports our Marines, they can not be beaten, certainly by these vermine.

However, if our country loses its will, as you have, yes, we may fail.

But if Harry Reid is granted his wish of defeat, then what?

"...these thugs in dirty night shirts?"

Just like we beat the guys in "black pajamas" in Vietnam? Still out of touch with reality, are we? Do you feel all Iraqis wear "dirty night shirts"?

Tom

As I stated above, the question comes down to seeing reality. We have already lost. It was lost when it was hatched. There is no victory that can be achieved

I love pathological writers like this who haven't really faced a moment of real warrior bravery. A warrior isn't brave when he/she runs into a burning building and dies. That's called stupidity and your take on Marines paints them as stupid and grunt like.

You ever heard of the home court advantage?

You have no sense of tactical advantage, laying of plans, and the resources. You don't just let the Marines, a force designed simply to KNOCK THE FREAKIN DOOR DOWN, and turn them into a catch all, jingo jism, super army that controls all. Get a grip.

And to say that any person who isn't GWBush is wishing for defeat because they say a war is lost is Pavlovian garbage. Quit chomping on the TownHall and NationalReview cud and think.

And last, Human beings, are not vermine. Perhaps you should examine your view of people before getting into your little hatefest. You are so locked with your affliction that you've lost all reason.

Let me ask it this way....China decides to forclose on their loans tomorrow and you get, oh...100,000 chinese storming the shores of Oregon, or wherever....are you an Insurgent...or are you looking for an official uniform to fight back?

When you don't know why your enemy is whipping your ass, you had better look at their advantages and get with the reality instead of your jingoistic slackjaw Rambo movie where one man can take down a mimiHind D with a grenade launcher and pocket knife.

Since we are speaking about debating history, your claim about FDR and Pearl Harbor is highly debatable.

Tom

Sir or madam,

I’m sorry. The sky-is-falling squeal for war in Iraq had already become a muffled, “Squeak. Squeak.’ It is now a barely audible, “Peep...peep...” In spite of what our brightly-toothed news anchors imply, 70% of Americans, over 80% if you exclude the die-hard Republican believers, now think that this war is (and probably was, from its "mission accomplished" start) lost.

See here.

That is, it was an unnecessary invasion and occupation of a sovereign country, not a credible threat to us in anyway, that was incompetently planned, executed, and without end objective, rushed into in spite of warnings that we would destroy the frail infrastructure of the country, get mired down in a 4th gen insurgency, and unleash a civil war. I mean no personal offense, but you are embarrassing yourself by plying the deceit that those who think otherwise are un-American .

Larry, do you know if they're enforcing gun control?

Brother Larry, apparently it isn't really sacrifice unless its at full meat grinder level. I keep being advised by wiser minds to simply accept that people are where they are, and spend my time wisely engaging their various world view pathologies. then there are my friends....

I haven't talked to 70 or 80 per cent of the American people, but I assure you that the vast majority of Americans don't like to lose, expecially wars involving our troops.

A pollster may easily convince a person to say he hates war and wants all the soldiers home. Believe me, the soldiers all want home as well.

But don't interpret that to mean they want to lose. They don't. And they don't care about "...the