Abbott and Costello Update: Who’s Iraq and What Do Al Qaeda?
Within the last week we have been told that Al Qaeda is weaker, Al Qaeda is stronger, Al Qaeda is coming, Al Qaeda is here, and that we are fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here except, somehow, maybe, they’ve found there way to our shores. Add to this Homeland Security Chief Chertoff’s “gut feeling” that we will be attacked even though there is no credible evidence.
Forgive me for mixing metaphors, but this is like an Abbott and Costello sketch (Who’s on First) set to the Troggs’ hit, Love is All Around.
Time to update the Troggs’ lyrics. We need someone to sing, “Al Qaeda is All Around".
Okay, you get the drift. Aspiring songwriters, get to work.I feel it in my tummy, I feel it in my toes.
Al Qaeda’s really coming, let all your fear now show.
I just saw Ayman’s video; he’s everywhere we go
They’re coming here to kill me, something’s going to blow.
Now let’s really compound the confusion. According to recent articles:
The leader of an Al Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shias in Iraq within two months, according to an audiotape.
Got it? Al Qaeda is threatening Iran (damnit! I thought Al Qaeda only hated us? Are we being two timed?)
U.S. Suspects That Iran Aids Both Sunni and Shiite Militias. “We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence sources have provided to Sunni insurgent groups some support,” said General Caldwell, who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military contended were largely of Iranian manufacture.
Whoops! Iran is helping Sunni insurgents. Al Qaeda is comprised of Sunnis. Now who’s on first?
In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.” . . . . The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.”
Now I seem to recall that the 15 of the 19 hijackers/murderers on September 11, 2001 were Saudi and not Iraqi. And that the group we now know as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was not part of Al Qaeda on 11 September 2001. And that a fierce gunbattle in Baghdad yesterday, which featured U.S. troops exchanging shots with Iraqi shia police and Shia militants, left 19 dead.
To recap: We are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. We don’t know who “them” are. So, we’re shooting everyone (kill them all, let Allah sort it out). And, despite all of our shooting, “them” aren’t staying put. Them are on their way or are probably already here and will attack momentarily. And we know this because of the super secret gut bomb detector roiling around in Michael Chertoff’s belly.
Who’s on first? No, what’s on second.
Comments (53)
Nothing surprising in the confusion. The Bush agenda basically has a contradiction in it.
On one hand, we're to believe that his security program has been so effective that we have not been attacked again. We're supposed to support all of his policies on that fact. We haven't been attacked again, thus he must be doing something right.
On the other hand, we need to support his policies because there's a growing threat.
Bush wants us to believe two statements in opposition. He's been so successful that we're safe but that we're all potential victims.
His argument includes two exagerations. The first is that he's built such a robust homeland defense that we're safe. The second is that the opponent has super powers and can hit us anyway.
Both statements are false. Our homeland security programs are a joke (Katrina proves it) and the enemy's capabilities are more limited than we've been led to believe (the fact that we keep busting weirdos with big ambitions and no capabilities proves that).
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
One cannot credit Bush with anything that he says. He is programmed to repeat the talking points that someone, presumably Cheney, supplies to him. That Bush is too inept to accurately repeat the talking points, or even recognize that he is mixing last week's talking points with this weeks, should not surprise us. So, we have Bush using last weeks talking point - we are incredibly strong due to his leadership - while repeating today's talking point - we are incredibly weak due to the growing strength of al Qaeda - mixed with yesterday's talking point - al Qaeda is but a shadow of it's pre 9/11 self - mixed with day before yesterday's talking point - al Qaeda is enormously more powerful as shown by its successes in Iraq - mixed with last Sunday's talking point - we have decimated al Qaeda in Iraq - mixed with.......
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bush wants us to believe two statements in opposition."
Too bad, he's no different from the Democrats who expect us to believe they want to end the war so much that they're prepared to spend $12B a week on it indefinitely. Stop funding "the troops"? Who me? Here's your blank check - or can I offer you a whole book of checks, or perhaps a box, or two, or a universal debit card good for war funding anywhere in the world anytime?
July 14, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing that to the table. Fact is, both major parties repeatedly use contradictions of thought as a way to confuse us all. I just think that the Democrats can be worked with (or, more to the point, worked on).
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bush is a puppet. But for one puppetmaster. Maybe we can't credit him with his utterances. A useful tool is that if Bush says something grammatically correct, he didn't write it. But, he is the mouthpiece. His masters don't make logical sense either, they just say it better.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, we have to keep exposing what the DO not just what they SAY. Too bad the Lieberman purge failed because I don't believe we're going to make any progress till we force a few out of office. Nothing else is going to get their attention.
July 14, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is still in the senate, sadly. But what happened wasn't a failure. Democratic candidates throughout the nation now know that they can ben defeated, at least in a primary. Connecticut, with a high level of independent and "low information" voters was kind of an aberation. Most people who lose a primary are toast. Lieberman had a long legacy in his home state and also respesented an iconoloclastic state, so he had a chance of pulling it out. Doesn't hurt that he campaigned dishonestly by stealing Lamont's talking points and then failed to deliver.
Most other federal officers from the Democratic Party know that if they're killed in a primary that they will not be able to pull a Lieberman.
Maybe we lost in that Lieberman is in the Senate and is troublesome. But we won in that we scared some others.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way the Senate rules work, debate on any bill can be ended only if 60% of the members vote to do so. The Democratic majority in the Senate is 50 to 49, nowhere near enough to close off debate on any issue the Repubs want to filibuster. That is why there is no way for the Democrats to stop funding the Iraq occupation. It would be wrong for them to refuse to allow any funding by just not passing such a bill, since that would strand the American military in Iraq. So, let us place the blame for this where it belongs - on the Repubs for filibustering and on ourselves for voting in too many Repubs.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats can stop funding the Iraq occupation by stopping to fund the Iraq occupation. Just stop voting the money. Send the troops tickets home. Fund sending them home. Stop funding the war. It's not that complicated. Instead, we're sending more troops. The Democrat in my state voted to send more troops to Iraq just as surely as did my Republican Senator. So don't tell me what the Democrats stand for -- they stand for sending more troops to Iraq. That's what they voted to do and until they stop voting to do that I don't believe anything they say. If you want to stop the war, stop it, do it, don't talk about it, vote it.
July 14, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Lieberman's loss in the primary was a significant factor in the fall elections, because it showed that even a long term Senator could be ejected by his party. Lieberman won the general election because the Republicans fielded a joke of a candidate, and because of those low information voters, and because people, I think, just didn't want to lose Joe's seniority. His approval ratings have gone down, considerably, since his re-election (relative to before) but he's basically still a huge problem.
Nonetheless, that primary loss was important.
Unfortunately, thought, as all the other readers have pointed out, the Democrats in Congress still don't seem to get it. Give us a blank check to fund the troops so that we can stop funding the troops. Eventually. Or something like that.
July 14, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is ready for Jon Stewart. Really. You could write for him. You SHOULD write for him.
The hilarious (and tragic) part of all of this is that it is true!
July 14, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only Katrina offers proof, our southern borders are so porous and unprotected that a couple of divisions of terrorist infantry with backpacks full of goodies could walk across the border unmolested at the right places in a weeks time. Suitcase nukes could come in on container ship as only about 10 percent of containers are screened. Homeland Security is a Joke that frisks little ole ladies and buisnesmen at domestic air terminals to provide the appearance of some useful activity by that sorry department. The director has a gut feeling does he? Well screw him and the treason horses he rode in on!
Well will have another serious terrorist attack when those lying, manipulative, treasonous, SOBs from Bush Inc. feel they need another one, not before...
July 14, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully said!
It sounds like a bunch of trolls impersonating each other on various blogs!
oooh... I'm really getting afraid....
July 14, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a shame Bush, or in the absence of real leadership the Press has not done a lot more to explain to the public the differences between Arabs and the people of Turkey, Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan. The public also needs to know the differrence between Sunnis, Shia and the various groups and where their religious allegence lies. The fact that most Americans do not seem to be able to distinguish a Shiite from Persia from a Sunni from Saudi Arabia allows Bush to get away with murder.
As for the Democrats. On the issue of Iraq they do not have a majority in the Senate let alone 60 votes to break a filibuster. They can't cut off the funds without the votes, I a image that they understand better than most how fast the public, if not writers on TPMCafe, can turn. Being blamed for not funding the troops, maybe unfair to the Democrats but it can be a very powerful weapon for the Republicans and especially Bush.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your outrage, but there is no way for my two Democratic senators to vote to send money to return the troops home when the Repubs in the senate refuse to allow such a bill to be voted on. The real choice facing Congress is whether to continue to provide the operating funds needed in Iraq or to allow the funding to run out, leaving the troops without supplies or a way out. That is the only choice that can come to a vote in the Senate. That is a result of Repub filibustering, so the blame cannot be assigned equally to the Democrats in the Senate.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
High compliment indeed. Thanks
July 14, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bro. Larry,
I'd say I love ya, but then they'd shoot ya.
So, what you are telling us here, is...the enemy of our enemy is our enemy's enemy? Wow, i'm going to practice that as a mantra/tonguetwister.
Here's what scares me most...Our military "leaders" are not very adept at strategy, and even less at turning our enemies on each other. They could unite the Hatfields and McCoys. They could unite Spock and McCoy.
These guys are so inept we have nothing to fear but their complete inability to even win the easy conflicts. Hell at the rate we are going, the Falkland Islands will be kicking our ass at strategy. Maybe we need to call this Iran Iraq war off and just reinvade Granada so we are facing hostile med students.
Maybe that great military strategist Hillary will save us after her or The Haircut (and I don't mean Rick Perry) win the presidency and save us all from ourselves.
Ok, on my way to get some Depends so I can continue to crap my pants when the nightly news comes on and scares the bejeeezus out of me.
July 14, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush agenda basically has a contradiction in it
I don't think the Bush agenda has a contradiction in it at all. Selling it to the public poses many difficulties since it has to be packaged in fiction. Hence even the most careful spinmeisters wind up dishing out incompatible statements.
One lesson to be learned is: if the politicians start talking from both sides of their mouth, you know they are lying to you.
July 14, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the US congress doesn't provide money for US troops in Iraq, then Bush can get them out of Iraq, or leave them stranded there without funding. If he does the latter, how is this the Democrats' fault?
The Democrats could push for a bill funding withdrawal only. If Bush and the Republicans reject this bill, who is not funding the troops?
All this isn't rocket science; the Democrats know it as well as anyone. The facts continue to support my view that the Democrats only want to appear to disagree with Bush; they actually agree with his policy, except for minor details.
Peter Miller
July 14, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a third option--Bush will continue to fund the war and defund items like military pay and Social Security checks. What on earth makes you think Bush won't do this?
July 14, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then the Republicans can talk to the military when they aren't paid and the seniors when they don't get checks and explain why fighting in Iraq is more important than the interests of the American people, because anyway you slice this we are spending $12B a week on a war that is of absolutely no use to anyone who is not at neocon.
July 14, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great part of politics involves the art of obfuscation (to confuse or make opaque). Yet it is a lesson that many refuse to learn; eternally hoping for ONE Honest Politician. "Jut tell us the truth!" they clamor but it falls on deaf ears
Media understands the ubiquity of obfuscation and hence HAS TO report in the he-said-she-said manner. Obfuscation is the common denominator! It is the "dog bites man" piece of information.
Once you understand that you have to find out for yourself what is likely to be their agenda, you have a better chance of understanding the rules of the game. At least you won't teeter between faith and disappointment.
July 14, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hanlon's Razor (from Robert J. Hanlon): "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I think George Bush actually thinks "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a description rather than the name of the group. He really thinks a group from Al Qaeda has simply moved into Iraq and the term is being used to distinguish them from Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
d
July 14, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we, the Democrats, don't do something utterly stupid we can win a good majority in Congress and win the presidency in 2008. Refusing to pass a spending bill to "support the troops" would be about as stupid as you can get. And, no spending bill that includes withdrawing troops from Iraq will ever be allowed to be voted on in the Senate. Independents would nod their heads and say, "yes, the Democrats don't support our wonderful military and would rather see our boys all killed in Iraq than to provide them the supplies they need". You would then guarantee 8 more years of Repub crime in government. Please, let's not do that. That would be childish.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 14, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And somehow you believe that Democrats who vote to defund this war will get off scot-free in the eyes of the public? And you actually believe that the public outcry will mean that funds won't be restored pronto? Believe me, those funds will be restored--and then the public will be convinced that there is no difference between the parties when it comes to stupidity.
The best plan is one with timetables. That won't happen until enough Republicans sign on so it is veto-proof. Even then, I personally don't expect Bush to honor it.
July 14, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, impeach the SOB!
July 14, 2007 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me LJ, how much and where did you hear the name Al Qaeda a few months before 9/11?
Bin Laden I knew of, but Al Qaeda I never heard of six months before they were supposed to have attacked the Trade Towers. I figure the official version of 9/11 starring a DR. Fu Manchu like Bin Laden heading a sophisticated world wide terrorist network form his vast Himalayan hideout is as loony a conspiracy story as any out there to explain what occurred on 9/11, a “b” movie scenario I ever heard one.
July 14, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard somewhere recently that Al Qaeda never called itself that at the start. But someone in the Clinton administration needed a name for bin Laden's organization as they began to track its activities and personnel so they came up with al Qaeda. Since we demonized them and they wanted that image, they thought it would help them if they simply adopted the name. And so they did.
Larry, if you're still reading comments here, could you comment on this? If anyone would know the veracity of this statement, you would.
d
July 14, 2007 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand this remark. It is a majority of the American public that now wants us out of Iraq and is holding the Congress (as well as the president) in contempt for not doing what we elected them to do last November. How do you figure the Dems will be punished for doing what most of us want them to do?
Besides, there are ways to end the occupation without simply cutting off all spending for the troops? How about fund them for fighting terrorism and getting the rest out of Iraq? That's a way to end the occupation and not abandon the troops. Isn't that what Warner and Lugar are trying to do?
d
July 14, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares that makes this claim, but I don't have outside verification of this.
What I can tell you is that it has been turned into a boogeyman word. BOO - Al-Qaida.
The word means a foundation, or basics, or fundamentals. I found this when I started studying music and that our learning involved learning, "qaidas". For the west we call them "etudes" or "studies" but, its basically the same.
So, did the original group, al-Qaida, call itself that? According to this article:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html
The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed
July 15, 2007 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just too the time elsewhere here to comment on al-Maliki's strong statement that America can go now.
Unfortunately, Hoppy, the Democrats have done plenty of utterly stupid things in the past. But at this point, I'm pulling for the general American people who seem to be pretty well lodged against BushCo LLP.
But now you have two candidates, Clinton and Edwards, who are busy whispering (on-mic) that they should deal with their contenders. They look about as mature as the girls on VH1 Charm School who gossip and plot against each other until one gets voted off after another, and the least loser might still win. Unfortunately for Clinton and Edwards, the Charm School winner was actually quite a jewel of dignity in the end...we'll see about them.
But I still hold out for my boy Dennis Kucinich. He was right about this war at the start, didn't have to flip-flop, was courageous enough like his predecessor Conyers to right an impeachment against Cheney, file that sucka (H.R. 333) and we haven't seen a lot of Democrats sign that bill.
But last, and I wish I could do this as respectful as I can, so forgive me if I'm not, but I really resent, as a parent of some very estute children, the idea of "childish" used towards adults. It is extremely condescending and is one of the very things about the Democrats and Republicans in politics that makes the whole thing stink.
If the Democrats want to be seen as mature, then they should crack that old constitution out, get a backbone in the Congress, and whip up some impeachment hearings on Cheney and Bush now. They'll kind of do the Republicans a favor to out the issue, because I bet they too want to ditch these Bozos. (sorry Bozo, rest your clown soul)
And last, refusing to pass a spending bill as a means to choke off a Presidents bloodletting isn't as stupid as you can get. Not declaring war as the Congress, and then throwing hands up in the air as they shred the constitution almost line by line, and then NOT cutting of funds and bringing our occupation to a halt...that is stupid, and far beyond the 2008 election cycle.
in my opinion....
July 15, 2007 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Irony of ironies, courtesy of Google Targeted Ads. At the top of TPM this morning was this link in the advert section. Is Osama bin Laden Dead? The story behind the link was a year old, which I guess is the irony of irony of ironies. But, Irony of Ironies squared, this week the bounty on Osama bin Laden was raised to $50,000,000.00 bucks. If the story from the U. K. is true, and bin Laden bought the farm (brought down by a bug, not a bomb or bullet), it's too bad for some graduate of mortuary science school that western embalming techniques are not practiced in that culture: some equivalent of the star of Six Feet Under could have made a fortune.
aMike
July 15, 2007 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Sheesh ... Not that I always fully agree with this individual, but I think he nails what is the pragmatic view of what's currently the status of this whole fricking mess in D.C. from this snippet in conclusion of a much longer piece by Anthony Cordesman:
~OGD~
July 15, 2007 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sing to "Everythings Comin' Up Roses.'
Clear the deck, clear the traaaaack
I'm gonna send all our troops... to I--raq,
Start-ing here, start-ing now,
Drop your pen, drop your plow
Pe-trae-us needs a few good men to-dayyyyy
Ba-by get in that unarmored Hum-vee and praaaaaaaaay!
al Qaaaaa-da here, in-sur-gents over there,
Rrrrrrrr Peeeeee Ge--ees,,,,, fly-ing a-round every-wh--ere,
Hide the facts, spin the lie,
Kristol, Ka-gen shrug as more troops die,
Russert grins, as Cheney spins
Ba-by eve-ry-things com-in up ro-ses
With Lie-berman sinnnnnnnnnnssssssssss
July 15, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Friedman wrote a column about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the summer of 2001 after overheard cellphone conversations led Bush to pull the U.S. fleet and soldiers out off much of the Middle East.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 15, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cordesman annoys me more than a little with the reflexive call for bipartisanship. Screw that---we're supposed to bury the hatchet with "Go **** yourself" Cheney? With Stonewall Bush? With Know-nothing Gonzales? With the iditotic impeachers of Clinton?
Which party is operating under a consent decree because of race-based election fraud? Calls for bipartisanship are like asking the cop to team up with the criminal.
We can be bipartisan after the GOP apologizes. Eat my vote.
July 15, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Timetables is a con game. It's totally phony. Timetables can be indefinitely gamed for politican purposes. Timetables have no military value whatever.
Funding the war is funding the war. Sending the National Guard to war is sending the National Guard to war.
The coffins all come with flags and funerals,
only now they were funded by a Democratic majority.
I believe Americans are smarter than you think they are.
July 15, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
duplicate
July 15, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Bush pulled out of the M.E. because of cell-phone chatter before 9/11? But he ignored all of the intelligence that they were planning an attack here?
July 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it so hard to understand the Senate rules? Before any bill can be voted on in the Senate, the debate has to be ended by a cloture vote, requiring 60 favorable votes. There are only 51 Democrats in the Senate, one is on long term medical leave and one is Lieberman. Until the Repubs want to allow a bill to be voted up or down it cannot be voted on in the Senate. And they will not allow a bill that would mandate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq to be voted on. I cannot conceive of a way to blame that on the Democrats, or to change that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 15, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember any such action. I'd like a cite.
Certainly we were still present in strength at Bin Sultan airbase in S. Arabia--it was a main point in Bin Laden's later declaration.
July 15, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
They must have pulled out in the middle of the night when no one was looking.
July 15, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Yeah ... OK ... Uh Huh ...
I understand how you feel, and in my own estimation I pretty much agree with you.
But is what Cordesman said there a pragmatic view of what's currently the status of this whole fricking mess in D.C., or not?
Oh, and BTW ... 373 "Keystone" cops already teamed up with the criminal on ... October 10, 2002.
House:
Senate:
~OGD~
July 15, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had friends that were snookered, too. I get some satisfaction from having been proved right about certain aspects of the war (WMD, continuing trouble), but I didn't have nearly enough company among peers, at the time.
So I'm sympathetic to the other suckers. Who had the votes, the info, the guns? Not the Dems. I won't let people blame the Democratic Party for the Iraq debacle. Not when they would have had little effect, in voting against authorization, except to maybe lose the next election, in that jingoistic pressure cooker.
A fair charge would be excessive caution now, but I see them moving, with all deliberate speed, to bring people before committee that will allow laying out the actual events for public judgement. It's our job to encourage that effort.
July 15, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet it's been less than 6 months ago that OPEC told us that they could no longer control the price of oil, while Alan Greenspan was telling congress that now traders, not producers, were controlling the price of oil.
So Chertoff speaks of a tingle in his upper-colon that AQ will attack soon, and kablooey, oil prices skyrocket. "Come on, boys, let's make some more loot" is what he meant to say.
Neoboho
July 15, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figure the man is long since dead as well. One supposes he's just too useful to give rites to and bury. It's more than interesting that every person we can lay hands on who might have interacted with him is detained off shore at Gitmo or in our eastern gulags blindfolded and gagged until safely debriefed, dead or cleared.
Looks like to me the powers that be are overly sensitive about what some who have associated with Bin Laden could reveal to the western press or defense attorneys.
July 15, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
how about to the tune of John Lennon's "Revolution"
And if you are willing to throw in the towel right now
you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
July 15, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but above you said "And, no spending bill that includes withdrawing troops from Iraq will ever be allowed to be voted on in the Senate."
I understand that based on the Senate rules; at least for today I believe that. But as the '08 election draws nearer, I suspect more Republicans will factor in the discontent of their constituents and you might see some of them coming over from the Dark Side.
You also said, "Independents would nod their heads and say, "yes, the Democrats don't support our wonderful military and would rather see our boys all killed in Iraq than to provide them the supplies they need"."
If it's the GOP that is blocking things with their filibuster, why would the Dems get blamed? I think the public is smart enough to understand how the GOP is clogging up the Senate. Now, if only the Dems would make a bigger issue out of it ...
d
July 15, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
I've had friends who've died.
Everybody seems to have all their excuses neatly packaged and ready to sell everytime someone is put to the post.
Heard the same in the late 60s and early 70s and another 21000+ came home in body bags. You can't spin the body bags.
Oh I know, hindsight is 20/20 and all that...
And I still didn't see any answer to... is what Cordesman said there a pragmatic view of what's currently the status of this whole fricking mess in D.C., or not?
~OGD~
July 15, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think Cordesman is unfair to equate the barely Democratic Congress with Bush, when he says they "are locked into a debate based on false and dishonest premises." He doesn't say what promises the Dems have made, or what's dishonest. Maybe elsewhere in the piece he defends this.
It's this easy, but inaccurate, symmetry, that I can't agree with: "Both are failing to meet their responsibility to the American people, and both are profiles in cowardice."
It's neither a pragmatic view (if that means likely to yield results) nor an accurate one. Cordesman's wish for "realistic long-term strategies, plans and budgets" will have to depend on Bush, so how pragmatic is that wish? Is Bush likely to pay any attention to "outside foreign policy experts, analysts and media saying that the actions of both sides are unacceptable"? They already have, observe the results.
We're screwed re Iraq--best hope is to slink away quietly, as far as I can see. That won't happen until this admin is kicked out. Let's see more testimony, and the waste will hit the fan.
July 16, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Thanks for your answer Tom.
Hey! It all sounds good on paper.
~OGD~
July 16, 2007 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the Republicans had the majorities in Congress it was their responsibility to get the necessary bills passed by Congress. Now it is the Democrats responsibility. Because of the narrowness of their majorities the Democrats must find compromises that allow Republicans to support bills before they can be passed. I think the news media will never allow the voters to forget that. So, if our Democratic Congress refused to submit a funding bill in the Senate that could be passed, the media would rightfully make note of the failure of the Democrats to run the Congress responsibly, and the voters would rightfully blame them for that.
This means our failure to get any spending bill thru Congress, thus leaving the military short of funds for the Iraq occupation, would be a failure of the Democrats, and the voters would be kept informed of this by the media. Just because we have a one vote majority in the Senate doesn't mean we control the Congress and the presidency. All we can do is prevent undesirable bills from being passed - we can't pass bills we desire without some Republican support, and unless those bills are at least marginally acceptable to the president, we can't get them signed into law. Sometimes reality sucks.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 16, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but any way you slice it, the GOP is filibustering. Somehow the media doesn't seem to be telling us that. As Josh said, it's always reported that the Dems lost a narrow vote.
And where's Trent Lott making his impassioned plea to allow an "up or down vote" as he and other GOP "leaders" did so often when the Dems filibustered when the GOP was in control? Oh, how I wish the GOP had pushed through their reform to do away with the filibuster. Not to take this in too different a direction, the more I think about it the more I believe filibustering is anti-democratic. I see no reason it should be allowed to exist.
d
July 16, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink