Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Iraq CF Thread - Page 12







Post#276 at 10-25-2007 11:47 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
10-25-2007, 11:47 PM #276
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
This ex-Republican hopped on the bus a few years ago.
Same here. I left the GOP in 2000.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#277 at 10-26-2007 12:37 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
10-26-2007, 12:37 AM #277
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by The Pervert View Post
Same here. I left the GOP in 2000.
2005 here. And Marc played a (small) role as a midwife of the process.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#278 at 10-26-2007 05:50 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
10-26-2007, 05:50 PM #278
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians have declined for the second month in a row as of October.







Post#279 at 10-26-2007 09:54 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-26-2007, 09:54 PM #279
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool So what?

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians have declined for the second month in a row as of October.
You are a moron, dude. That don't mean nothin'. Bush lied. No WMD. No blood for Haliburton. The so-called "surge" was was a failure from day one, because the only surge that mattered was one of U.S. Bush butchers leaving that place we Democrats "voted for before we voted against" sending them in the first place.

Bush sucks. Democrats rule, baby!







Post#280 at 10-26-2007 10:23 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
10-26-2007, 10:23 PM #280
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
You are a moron, dude. That don't mean nothin'. Bush lied. No WMD. No blood for Haliburton. The so-called "surge" was was a failure from day one, because the only surge that mattered was one of U.S. Bush butchers leaving that place we Democrats "voted for before we voted against" sending them in the first place.

Bush sucks. Democrats rule, baby!
Was this snark or just your typical neo-con immature idiocy?







Post#281 at 10-26-2007 10:37 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
10-26-2007, 10:37 PM #281
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
You are a moron, dude. That don't mean nothin'. Bush lied. No WMD. No blood for Haliburton. The so-called "surge" was was a failure from day one . . .
You mean Bush did NOT cherry pick the pre-invasion data? You mean our forces DID find WMD? You mean Haliburton has NOT received no-bid contracts? You mean the surge HAS secured the borders, secured the oil pipelines, and secured the electrical grid so that we can actually achieve our "objectives" in Iraq?

Wow. I didn't know that. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#282 at 10-26-2007 11:45 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-26-2007, 11:45 PM #282
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Uh...

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Was this snark or just your typical neo-con immature idiocy?
Citing the fact that "[d]eaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians have declined for the second month in a row as of October" makes you a typical snarky neo-con, exhibiting immature idiocy, dude.

Um, get a grip, Bush sucks, now, no matter what happens anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

What we need now is "consensus," dude. It's the stuff the "coming regeneracy" is made of. So, Seig Heil!, and damn the torpedoes!







Post#283 at 10-27-2007 09:12 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-27-2007, 09:12 AM #283
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Was this snark or just your typical neo-con immature idiocy?
Some of both, but quite possibility more than a grain of truth. At some point the public will make up its mind and there won't be any changing that. The public may well have turned against the war and its authors and new information isn't going to change their mind. Will war opponents believe anything this administration or its spokesmen say about the war?







Post#284 at 10-27-2007 11:49 AM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-27-2007, 11:49 AM #284
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Yes, Even If...

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
At some point the public will make up its mind and there won't be any changing that. The public may well have turned against the war and its authors and new information isn't going to change their mind. Will war opponents believe anything this administration or its spokesmen say about the war?
That's right...
even if Iraq doesn't descend into a civil war, like the Democrats said it would...
even if Iraq doesn't deteriorate into a quagmire, like the Democrats said it would...
even if the insurgency fails in Iraq, like the Democrats warned it would not...
even al Qaeda fails in Iraq, like the Democrats declared it would not...
even if the violent IEDs cease to maim and kill children in Iraq, like the Democrats determined would never happen...
and and even if Iraq joins the free, legitimate democratic nations of the world, as Bush determined they would...
the U.S. still lost the Iraq War, because the public has decided the Democrats are right...
and Bush will always lie about WMD.

I know that sounds kinda weird but that's the New Truth for Our New 4T!







Post#285 at 10-27-2007 12:58 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
10-27-2007, 12:58 PM #285
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Gotta start reading more than the Birch Society Newsletter

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
That's right...
even if Iraq doesn't descend into a civil war, like the Democrats said it would...
Uh, it has, and it will probably get worse. Unless of course millions being ethnically cleansed doesn't count.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
even if Iraq doesn't deteriorate into a quagmire, like the Democrats said it would...
It has. We have been stuck there for over four years with over 130,000 troops. According to your boys it should have been over long ago and with a 30,000 solider clean-up operation.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
even if the insurgency fails in Iraq, like the Democrats warned it would not...
It has been quite successful. The insurgency has managed to stop our efforts at repairing the oil infrastructure and power grid even with tens of billions of dollars of investment (and massive corruption has not helped). The insurgency has helped kill or injure over 30,000 of our solidiers and mess up more than that in the head.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
even al Qaeda fails in Iraq, like the Democrats declared it would not...
They have just moved from place to place. They still exist, they have radically inflamed Sunni-Shia hatred with the al-Askari bombing and Al Qaeda's overall recruitment potential has increased exponentially thanks to the Iraq War.


Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
even if the violent IEDs cease to maim and kill children in Iraq, like the Democrats determined would never happen...
Huh? This will stop when the violence stops. So a LONG time from now.


Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
and and even if Iraq joins the free, legitimate democratic nations of the world, as Bush determined they would...
When is this going to happen? 2036?


Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
the U.S. still lost the Iraq War, because the public has decided the Democrats are right...
So it would seem from the polling data.


Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
and Bush will always lie about WMD.
As long as he sticks by Iraq being an "imminent threat" and "clear and present danger" c. 2002 when he know it was not, then yes.


Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
I know that sounds kinda weird but that's the New Truth for Our New 4T!
"Hello in there Cliff. What's the color of the sky in your world?"
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#286 at 10-27-2007 11:50 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-27-2007, 11:50 PM #286
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Big Whoppers!

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
As long as he sticks by Iraq being an "imminent threat"...
Ah, this is such an excellent example of how the lie becomes the great 4T Truth.

The poster knows full well Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat", but that's beside the point. The real point is "Bush sucks," so anything we can dish out, true or false, to buttress that story-line is fair game.

Hey, most folks could care less about the little lie, it's the big one they always fall for. Eh, lying Democrats rule, baby. The bigger the whopper the more believable.







Post#287 at 10-28-2007 12:08 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
10-28-2007, 12:08 AM #287
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
The poster knows full well Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat"
WRONG.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons...

...Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique...

...Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
Sounds pretty iminent to me.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran..

...Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerpriNTS.
How iminent does the phraising need to be?
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists...

... If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
His own words say it all. But what's even more is how often the Iraq CF is compaired to WWII. Your side did lie and too many people know the truth now.
Last edited by herbal tee; 10-28-2007 at 12:12 AM.







Post#288 at 10-28-2007 12:15 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
10-28-2007, 12:15 PM #288
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
Ah, this is such an excellent example of how the lie becomes the great 4T Truth.

The poster knows full well Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat", but that's beside the point. The real point is "Bush sucks," so anything we can dish out, true or false, to buttress that story-line is fair game.

Hey, most folks could care less about the little lie, it's the big one they always fall for. Eh, lying Democrats rule, baby. The bigger the whopper the more believable.
Ooooh! Quoting yourself as an authority now. Nice.

Well guess what Marc. You and I have been through this before, or have you forgotten?

Thus speaketh the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, official mouthpiece for the President, who, BTW, never retracted that statement.

But actually, that is all besides the point. As Herbal has pointed out, the President said plenty to agree with Ari. And Darth Dick said more! And what about "clear and present danger"? That and "imminent threat" have specific meanings, Marc. Furthermore, what of Bush, and Dick, and Condi discussing "mushroom clouds" over our cities?

To say that Bush was not claiming we were in immediate peril from Iraqi nukes by way of Al Qaeda is either disingenousness, ignorance, or ideological blindness. I will give you special credit and assume it's all three in your case.

In MY case, I will admit to utter foolishness for believing Bush on that back in the day. I never in my wildest imaginings thought a president would betray the public trust so blatantly. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I was a FOOL for ever believing this administration on anything. It is a mistake I have not made since and will never make again.

Oh, and Marc, what about all the other points I made refuting your alternate reality about how well Iraq is doing (or will do under Bush policies)? I didn't hear a peep out of you on those.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#289 at 10-29-2007 09:03 AM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-29-2007, 09:03 AM #289
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool What did the President Say?

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Ooooh! Quoting yourself as an authority now. Nice. Well guess what Marc. You and I have been through this before, or have you forgotten? [snip sound bite]
Thus speaketh the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, official mouthpiece...
The Bush argument for deposing Saddam was as follows:
In Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.

Later that year, in a speech to the United Nations, he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as "clear and present" but "grave and gathering," an obvious allusion to Churchill's "gathering storm," the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, "if this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions . . . would come too late."

The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse. Hussein was not going away. The sanctions were not going to restrain him. Even his death would be no reprieve, as his half-mad sons would take over. The argument was that Hussein had to be removed eventually and that with Hussein relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable, now would be more prudent and less costly than later.

He was right.
- Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post (July 18, 2003)
But let's face it, the lie is a lot more fun to play with.
Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
But actually, that is all besides the point.
It always is when your lie is confronted with the truth.







Post#290 at 10-29-2007 11:52 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-29-2007, 11:52 AM #290
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Highlighting is mine
Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
The Bush argument for deposing Saddam was as follows:
In Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.

Later that year, in a speech to the United Nations, he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as "clear and present" but "grave and gathering," an obvious allusion to Churchill's "gathering storm," the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, "if this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions . . . would come too late."

The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse. Hussein was not going away. The sanctions were not going to restrain him. Even his death would be no reprieve, as his half-mad sons would take over. The argument was that Hussein had to be removed eventually and that with Hussein relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable, now would be more prudent and less costly than later.

He was right.
- Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post (July 18, 2003)
But let's face it, the lie is a lot more fun to play with.

It always is when your lie is confronted with the truth.
Based solely on the highlighted appraisal, I think we can ignore the assessment of this commentator.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#291 at 10-29-2007 12:05 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
10-29-2007, 12:05 PM #291
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
Ah, this is such an excellent example of how the lie becomes the great 4T Truth.

The poster knows full well Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat", but that's beside the point. The real point is "Bush sucks," so anything we can dish out, true or false, to buttress that story-line is fair game.

Hey, most folks could care less about the little lie, it's the big one they always fall for. Eh, lying Democrats rule, baby. The bigger the whopper the more believable.
How many times are we going to go down this road?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...es/b24970.html

The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
I guess you might be able to claim that all these WH folks were operating independent of the Prez. But that falls quickly into the other "myth" of Bush’s (and/or Republican administrations’) general ineptitude.

Choose your poison, big guy. http://i22.tinypic.com/z8je8.gif
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#292 at 10-29-2007 12:35 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
10-29-2007, 12:35 PM #292
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Regardless of the definition of the word "imminent," is this not excellent news?

Obviously, we can feel good that the 33 fatalities suffered by our troops for October (as of 10/28) was more than half below the average of the 68.6 suffered in the five Octobers we have been in Iraq (this September's 65 fatalities is above the 5-year September average of 59.4).

I guess we can also put aside the 98 actual deaths suffered as well.

The concern is that this "excellent news" belies a continuing short-sighted, near desperate attempt to distract us from what a long-term CF that Iraq is for us.

But if you want the short-look, here's a short Juan Cole 24-hour summary for just today -

Monday, October 29, 2007
Reconciliation Sheikhs Kidnapped;
Kirkuk, Karbala Bombings

LA Times says that 11 members of The Salam (Peace) tribal council of Baquba, were kidnapped at gunpoint as they were driving back from the Green Zone toward Baquba, where they are based. They had been conducting talks with the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Although the kidnapping occurred in a largely Shiite district of the capital, it cannot be assumed that the Shiites are the problem.

There were also big bombings in the northern oil city of Kirkuk (8 dead, 25 wounded) and in the southern Shiite shrine city of Karbala. About Kirkuk, LAT says:


' A suicide car bomber killed seven people and wounded 25 in the disputed northern city of Kirkuk on Sunday, targeting a crowded bus terminal heavily used by travelers to the provinces that form the semiautonomous Kurdistan region, police and witnesses said. Ten shops and 15 cars were set ablaze by the afternoon explosion. "It was a suicide car; the driver detonated himself in front of a civilian crowd next to the bus terminal," said witness Rebowar Mohammad, 32. "I was close to the explosion. There was thick, dark smoke covering the place."


As for Karbala, the bombing, which left 6 dead, came in the wake of the announcement that US troops are withdrawing from the province, which is a big pilgrimage center. The withdrawal will allow the Shiite factions that have been fighting there to more openly contest control of it, and the bombing is probably an opening salvo. The martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, Husain, is interred in a shrine in Karbala.

The NYT says that Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq are thumbing their noses at Turkey. About the US dilemma in northern Iraq, where it is caught between its Kurdish and Turkish allies, Sabrina Tavernisse wickedly quotes a local Kurd: "The United States “is like a man with two wives,” said one Iraqi Kurd in Sulaimaniya. “They quarrel, but he doesn’t want to lose either of them.”

The British officer corps says of the remaining UK presence in Basra, "Get us out of here!" and admits that in recent months the foreign troops may have been doing more harm than good.

McClatchy reports of Basra on Sunday:


' Basra

Yesterday night, Gunmen attacked a convoy of the Islamic Party killing one member in the party and injured 3 others. The attackers kidnapped 2 others from the convoy which was coming from Zubeer twon southwest Basra city towards Basra.

Gunmen killed one prominent member of the Supreme Election Committee in Basra (Ausama Al Abadi) downtown Basra yesterday night.

Around 12.00: the FBS of South Oil Co. in Basra open fire against the demonstrators who gathered in front of building of the company to demand of providing them with jobs in this company. 6 of demonstrators were injured in the incident. '

The Telegraph article talks of death squad rule in the city.
Hope this helps.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#293 at 10-29-2007 02:25 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-29-2007, 02:25 PM #293
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I would say that both "sides" are desperate in their attempts to distract.

Blech.
I'll second the 'blech.'

On the home front, both parties seem to want to sustain an indefinite occupation while discrediting the other party's policy of an indefinite occupation. As I am dubious about the merits of occupations, quite definitely, blech.

While US casualties might be down, I'm not getting the impression of a united Iraqi government forming. The various local parties seem still committed to use of force in hopes of gaining a dominant position in whatever falls out of the mess. It's just that in the ever shifting tactics of the conflict, the US doesn't seem to be considered the target of the month.

The fallout from the Blackwater problems ought also be in play. The rules of engagement have long authorized use of force to prevent any car getting close enough to US forces for a car bomb to be lethal. This means a lot of cars full of innocents get blown away. There is also a recent upsurge in use of air power. Insurgent mortar and sniper teams a few months back were bobby trapping a building or village, taking a few shots, then blowing IEDs as the counter insurgents enter the bobby trapped zone. The response by the counter insurgents is to bomb the building or village instead of sending in ground forces. This is much less risky for the counter insurgents, but very hard on the civilians living in the area. Sixty Minutes last night confronted the Prime Minister of Afghanistan with the story of a young boy who was the sole survivor of his village.

Retribution is a traditional method for dealing with insurgent warfare. Sherman practiced it on his March to the Sea. The Nazi practiced it against the French Resistance. Saddam was hanged for practicing it on the Shiite. Bush 43 might yet have to answer to a persistent policy of bombing civilian areas. Retribution might be the primary approach available for discouraging civilian populations from harboring insurgents.

But it is really bad public relations. It is not a good way for an occupying power to win acceptance by the locals.

Both the insurgents and the occupiers ought to be rethinking their tactics.

I have also seen multiple reports of insurgents kidnapping and killing politicians. As a good deal of the problem is power hungry politicians, I might almost begin to get enthusiastic about that one. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be towards politicians seeking peace and cooperation to be killed by those seeking power by force.







Post#294 at 10-29-2007 02:39 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-29-2007, 02:39 PM #294
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
That's right...
even if Iraq doesn't descend into a civil war, like the Democrats said it would...
even if Iraq doesn't deteriorate into a quagmire, like the Democrats said it would...
even if the insurgency fails in Iraq, like the Democrats warned it would not...
even al Qaeda fails in Iraq, like the Democrats declared it would not...
even if the violent IEDs cease to maim and kill children in Iraq, like the Democrats determined would never happen...
and and even if Iraq joins the free, legitimate democratic nations of the world, as Bush determined they would...
the U.S. still lost the Iraq War, because the public has decided the Democrats are right...
and Bush will always lie about WMD.

I know that sounds kinda weird but that's the New Truth for Our New 4T!
The general perception right now is is that the Iraq war is (1) a civil war (2) a quagmire (3) the insurgery is not losing (4) IEDs continue to maim and kill (5) Iraq is not free and democratic and (6) the US is losing. If this were not the perception, then a majority would support the war--as was the case in May 2003.

In order to change the 70% disapproval poll numbers, the adminstration has to reverse the opinion on most if not all of these 6 points.

This is very difficult to do because the American people are not IN Iraq and so cannot assess the answers for themselves. They have to be told. But who can tell them? Those who oppose the war do not believe anything they are told about the war by the government. But since any information would have to come from the government it is not going to be possible to change many minds.







Post#295 at 10-29-2007 02:46 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
10-29-2007, 02:46 PM #295
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I would say that both "sides" are desperate in their attempts to distract.

Blech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlFQ6Qr5-BA
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#296 at 10-29-2007 04:44 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
10-29-2007, 04:44 PM #296
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Obviously, we can feel good that the 33 fatalities suffered by our troops for October (as of 10/28) was more than half below the average of the 68.6 suffered in the five Octobers we have been in Iraq (this September's 65 fatalities is above the 5-year September average of 59.4).

I guess we can also put aside the 98 actual deaths suffered as well.
I wasn't talking about the monthly average of U.S. troop deaths, I was talking about the dceline in the past TWO MONTHS OF THIS YEAR!! God AlMIGHTY, LISTEN TO ME WHEN I SPEAK!!! THAT AIN"T HARD!!!!!

Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined for the past two months. Also, Karbala Province was just handed over to Iraqi security forces today. Basra is also very peaceful. We should plan more troop drawdowns, 'cause we're winning!







Post#297 at 10-29-2007 06:42 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-29-2007, 06:42 PM #297
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Do you hear what I hear?

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined for the past two months. Also, Karbala Province was just handed over to Iraqi security forces today. Basra is also very peaceful. We should plan more troop drawdowns, 'cause we're winning!
God AlMIGHTY, WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT!!! THAT'S HARD STUFF TO FIND OUT!!!!

Like Mr. Alexander pointed out, everybody in the main-stream media are preachin' that Iraq is a lost cause.







Post#298 at 10-29-2007 07:47 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-29-2007, 07:47 PM #298
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
God AlMIGHTY, WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT!!! THAT'S HARD STUFF TO FIND OUT!!!!

Like Mr. Alexander pointed out, everybody in the main-stream media are preachin' that Iraq is a lost cause.
Not just the mainstream media, but the administration, and you too.







Post#299 at 10-29-2007 10:21 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
10-29-2007, 10:21 PM #299
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
I wasn't talking about the monthly average of U.S. troop deaths, I was talking about the dceline in the past TWO MONTHS OF THIS YEAR!! God AlMIGHTY, LISTEN TO ME WHEN I SPEAK!!! THAT AIN"T HARD!!!!!
Okay, maybe I was too subtle. And perhaps you're not so great with bar charts. Here are the US casualties by month and year -

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003 0 0 65 74 37 30 48 35 31 44 82 40
2004 47 20 52 135 80 42 54 66 80 64 137 72
2005 107 58 35 52 80 78 54 85 49 96 84 68
2006 62 55 31 76 69 61 43 65 72 106 70 112
2007 83 81 81 104 126 101 78 84 65 33 - -


With the exception of this current month of October (which I pointed out), it is completely arsine to look at these numbers and deduce any change in trend INCLUDING this past September. Further, even a sophomore statistician would tell you the Oct number could just be a statistical outlier; at this point in time, we can only hope/pray that it is meaningful. To get excited about the numbers from one month is premature and possible even dangerous to our troops (e.g. do you remember "Bring it on!")

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined for the past two months. Also, Karbala Province was just handed over to Iraqi security forces today. Basra is also very peaceful. We should plan more troop drawdowns, 'cause we're winning!
To bring the troops home, if this is the type of mass psychosis we need to instill in our 26% deadenders that still support the occupation, then I say let's jam as much of this Kool Aid down their F-ing throats and hold back on their lithium meds!

For those of us still dealing with reality, I suggest this -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVvnWZtAJss
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#300 at 10-29-2007 10:57 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
10-29-2007, 10:57 PM #300
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Resigned to Defeat in Iraq?

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Not just the mainstream media, but the administration, and you too.
Oh, yeah, I forgot Bush and I were calling Iraq a defeat for the U.S. and demanding we bring the troops home now, too.

Sheesh, how could I've missed that?
-----------------------------------------