WTF?

I found this gem on msn.com.

AT THE MOSUL DAM, Iraq - The largest dam in Iraq is in serious danger of an imminent collapse that could unleash a trillion-gallon wave of water, possibly killing thousands of people and flooding two of the largest cities in the country, according to new assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other U.S. officials.

Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.

At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.

"In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the Army Corps concluded in September 2006, according to the report to be released Tuesday. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."

The full article can be accessed here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536128/

Quite obviously, this situation has the potential to be much more destabilizing and horrific than Katrina could ever hope to be. I keep saying that Iraq is in a 2T, and should the situation go from bad to worse, it will be interesting to see how they react.

It's really incredible that the country has shied away from 4T "genocidal" violence, despite all the crap that has happened and the perfect setup for such a conflict. But 35 years from now...

Originally Posted by zilch

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.

Not exactly. It's more the boy who called wolf. Proclamations that victory is coming are no longer believed. So it's as if you are calling it a defeat.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Not exactly. It's more the boy who called wolf. Proclamations that victory is coming are no longer believed. So it's as if you are calling it a defeat.

Where's Pinky, I think we need an Arsenic "CF" thread...

No, seriously, this is a strange take on the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. I mean, do we now discredit the wolf-slayer because of his positive attitude in the face of the immense odds against him?

Is this the modern-day liberal lesson of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Originally Posted by zilch

Where's Pinky, I think we need an Arsenic "CF" thread...

No, seriously, this is a strange take on the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. I mean, do we now discredit the wolf-slayer because of his positive attitude in the face of the immense odds against him?

Is this the modern-day liberal lesson of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Let's see. First, the wolf that needed slaying is sitting in a mountain redoubt somewhere in North Pakistan, after 6 years of thumbing his nose at us. Second, the slain wolf was more lone dingo than wolf, nasty and snarly but not dangerous to us at all.

If there is a point buried in here somewhere, I missed it.

Originally Posted by zilch

No, seriously, this is a strange take on the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. I mean, do we now discredit the wolf-slayer

In the story with which I am familiar nobody kills the wolf.

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-st...s/BoyCri.shtml

The moral of the story is "There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In the story with which I am familiar nobody kills the wolf.

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-st...s/BoyCri.shtml

The moral of the story is "There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."

Right, Bush cried victory when there was none in sight, so when victory really did come people didn't believe him and victory killed him. That's sounds pretty convoluted, but I can see how a defeatist liberal could equate victory with the big bad wolf (especially in light of their umpteen sheepish congressional resolutions demanding defeat).

Come now, the tree falling in the woods story is a much better analogy, here. Nobody saw the victory, so did it really occur? For those who believe 9/11 occurred in a vacuum, the answer would obviously be "no."

p.s. Hey, thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's see. First, the wolf that needed slaying is sitting in a mountain redoubt somewhere in North Pakistan, after 6 years of thumbing his nose at us.

I confess, I don't understand why Bush is taking so long to get that guy. I mean, we'd be taking out one of the Democrats biggest supporters if we nailed bin Laden.

Originally Posted by zilch

I confess, I don't understand why Bush is taking so long to get that guy. I mean, we'd be taking out one of the Democrats biggest supporters if we nailed bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden is the best BushCo can do to emulate the Commies. He has him right where he wants him ... on the loose.

Originally Posted by zilch

Right, Bush cried victory when there was none in sight

Right

so when victory really did come people didn't believe him

Victory hasn't come--hostilities are still ongoing.

and victory killed him.

No, lying killed him.

That's sounds pretty convoluted,

Seems pretty clear to me.

but I can see how a defeatist liberal

The defeatists are on your side. This war was a slam dunk for for a competent chief executive. That's why I supported it. How can the party that loves war be so godawful bad at waging one. Obviously Bush should have taken a leaf from Reagan's book and just talked about "standing up to the terrorists". Action is simply not the Republican's forte.

Originally Posted by zilch

I confess, I don't understand why Bush is taking so long to get that guy.

Bush already said he wasn't important to the Republicans. So why on Earth should they bother with going after him?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This war was a slam dunk for for a competent chief executive.

Lemmee guess, he shoulda sung Kum-by-yah more often...

Originally Posted by zilch

God AlMIGHTY, WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT!!! THAT'S HARD STUFF TO FIND OUT!!!!

WIKINEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by sean '90

WIKINEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They lied. Mr. Alexander sez so.

Originally Posted by sean '90

...Basra is also very peaceful...

Originally Posted by zilch

God AlMIGHTY, WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT!!! THAT'S HARD STUFF TO FIND OUT!!!!

Here's what peaceful looks like in Basra -



God, I love the sight of victory in the morning!

Here's the story to go along with the wonderful visual -

Iraqi city in the grip of militias
By Ahmed Janabi
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2007
10:35 MECCA TIME, 7:35 GMT

Amid warnings that southern Iraq could erupt into civil war when British troops withdraw, Basra's chief of police has publicly admitted that his forces have been unable to clamp down on growing militia warfare in the city.

In recent months, rival Shia factions have been battling for control of the city which is considered the second largest in the country and home to Iraq's only port.

This makes the Basra a vital outlet to the Gulf for marine transportation of oil and fuel products – a lucrative prize for any political faction looking to consolidate its power in Baghdad.

Power struggle

The ensuing power struggle has led to an exodus of Sunni, Shia and Christian families northwards and often out of the country.

Earlier this week, Major-General Jalil Khalaf, commander of the Basra police department, admitted for the first time that the militias have proven too strong for – and often infiltrated - his forces.

Speaking to As-Sabah, the official Iraqi daily, he said: "Most of Basra's ports, especially Um Qasr, are under the control of militia gangs.

"The police force is incapable of executing its duties because its members report to Basra's militias and (political) parties which own those militias.

"Their loyalty is not to the Iraqi state but to their parties."

Khalaf was unavailable for comment.

You guys are even more clueless than the current chimp in the White House.

Here's a link to Lie by Lie, a compendium of factoids tied to the Iraq time line, compiled through some serious effort by Mother Jones. The time wheel is too clever by half, but using the TAGS can pull-out time lines by subject.

And yes, I know that Mother Jones is not exactly an unbiased source, but this is reportage, not opinion. Discount it if you wish, but at the very least, you can have fun playing with the time wheel.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's a link to Lie by Lie, a compendium of factoids tied to the Iraq time line, compiled through some serious effort by Mother Jones. The time wheel is too clever by half, but using the TAGS can pull-out time lines by subject.

And yes, I know that Mother Jones is not exactly an unbiased source, but this is reportage, not opinion.

No, it's same set of lies that the anti-American movement has been peddling for years. Even when they get some of their facts right, it's in the service of a larger lie. They treat Joe Wilson as being credible, which in itself discredits their claims.

It's too late to try and argue that the so-called 'peace movement' or the Democrats are credible on this issue, it's intellectually dishonest.

When Joe Wilson was revealed as a liar, their entire tissue of falsehoods came apart. The Democrats knew Wilson was lying, Fitzgerald knew Wilson was lying, at least some of the big name reporters knew he was lying. And his lies formed the basis of the whole 'Bush lied' propaganda scam.

Bush was telling the truth, as far as it was known at the time, about the WMDs and the nature of the threat. The people claiming otherwise are now known with certainty to be lying.

Originally Posted by zilch

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.

Dubya may have said "clear and gathering" that time, but he and many top folks in his administration said more than that, many times. Like here, and here, and here, and here and elsewhere.

So, again, and again, and again, and again, whether it be Bush, or Cheney, or Rummie, or Scotty, or Bartlett, or whomever, the threat from Hussein's regime is described as "immediate", "mortal", "terrible", "unique", or extraordinarily dire in some fashion. And on at least two occasions White House officials (Fleisher and Bartlett) agreed with the "imminent" assessment about Iraq specifically and never retracted those statements and the White House never distanced itself from the statements.

But one of my favorites is this little piece from Scott McClellan:

But again, I mean, you have to go back to the bigger picture. That was one piece of a much broader case against Saddam Hussein. And I think that you will see the leaders who are in town today, the Prime Minister as well as the President, talk about the most dangerous threat of our time, and that's the nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups. [Emphasis Added]

This gets to the crux of the matter. Several nations have nuclear weapons, and many more have biochemical capabilities. What the Bush Administration was saying was Iraq was extra special because Hussein was going to give WMD to Al Qaeda.

Thus, we have the trumped up Iraq - Al Qaeda connection, which report after report has shown was "discovered" via cherry-picking the data. Were there points of data that could be used to demonstrate such a connection? Sure. But the same could be said for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and for little green men from the gamma quadrant giving grandma the ol' anal probe. However, the totality of the data makes accepting such conclusions highly suspect.

So yes Mr. Lamb, it is the truth that the Bush administration said that the threat posed by Iraq was "imminent" and "immediate" and "mortal", in addition to "grave" and "growing". This is not just the "4T truth", but the factual truth. And as I said before, as long as they are sticking to such terminology that are lying because they knew it was not the case. Sure, a strong case could be made that they thought WMD would actually be there. I am not faulting them on that, though that turned out wrong too. But, as the British ascertained, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

I could, at a LONG stretch, believe that the adminstration did not know what it was doing and that it just got caught up in a whirlwind of paranoia and belligerence. Even then, the fact remains that the White House has not disavowed it's "findings". Therefore, they are still lying.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Bush was telling the truth, as far as it was known at the time, about the WMDs and the nature of the threat. The people claiming otherwise are now known with certainty to be lying.

Ah, Pope Hope. Things have not been nearly as amusing while you were gone. Tell us more about how Michelle Malkin did not state that Kerry shot himself on purpose. Please. I beg you. The Ovis of the Buckeyes is just not up to the task of entertaining anymore.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Here's a link to Lie by Lie, a compendium of factoids tied to the Iraq time line, compiled through some serious effort by Mother Jones... And yes, I know that Mother Jones is not exactly an unbiased source, but this is reportage, not opinion...

No, it's same set of lies that the anti-American movement has been peddling for years. Even when they get some of their facts right, it's in the service of a larger lie. They treat Joe Wilson as being credible, which in itself discredits their claims.

It's too late to try and argue that the so-called 'peace movement' or the Democrats are credible on this issue, it's intellectually dishonest...

H-m-m-m. There are several hours of reading in that list. I'm impressed by the speed with which you dissected it. You did read at least some of it, didn't you? I note the lack of counter-facts, though you have included counter-allegations, as usual.

Look, I'm not expecting you to rebut this line by line, but blatant dismissal is also unacceptable. It's no more our job to prove anything to you than is the contrary, but you have a bad habit of assuming the burden is always ours.

(Emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No, it's same set of lies that the anti-American movement has been peddling for years.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's too late to try and argue that the so-called 'peace movement' or the Democrats are credible on this issue, it's intellectually dishonest.... Bush was telling the truth, as far as it was known at the time, about the WMDs and the nature of the threat.

This is actually great news for our side. If the Right truly believes that Bush did not lie about Iraq, and that the Democrats did, then the Right will argue for the continuation of Bush administration policy in everything except immigration.

With any luck, the Right will attempt to swiftboat Clinton on the war by airing commericals saying that Clinton secretly plans to lose the war.

If she responds tepidly to this attack, like John Kerry did, it will be seen by the punditocracy as just more Democratic campaign incompetance and they will drop it. The net effect might be that the public will come to believe that Sen Clinton really intends to end the war, even if she won't promise to do so. The majority who wants an end to the war will be more likley to vote for her because it's certain that it will never end if the other guy gets elected.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... With any luck, the Right will attempt to swiftboat Clinton on the war by airing commericals saying that Clinton secretly plans to lose the war.

If she responds tepidly to this attack, like John Kerry did, it will be seen by the punditocracy as just more Democratic campaign incompetance and they will drop it. The net effect might be that the public will come to believe that Sen Clinton really intends to end the war, even if she won't promise to do so. The majority who wants an end to the war will be more likley to vote for her because it's certain that it will never end if the other guy gets elected.

As strong a condemnation of Hillary '08 as I've read. She is so post-seasonal, that even post-seasonal Rudy sounds more current. If she wins that way, she better be FDR 2.0 or she'll be HRH 4 and gone.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As strong a condemnation of Hillary '08 as I've read. She is so post-seasonal, that even post-seasonal Rudy sounds more current. If she wins that way, she better be FDR 2.0 or she'll be HRH 4 and gone.

Are there any seasonal candidates out there? I'm afraid Obama is turning out to be pre-seasonal. I was interested in him for awhile but now I think he's better suited for a 1T.

They all are dividers while they all preach unity. I haven't seen any of the top-tier candidates seriously discuss anything that would incorporate a major shift in how the U.S. looks at the world. They are all irrelevant and are being carried by the will of their potential constituents. Tolstoy wouldn't be surprised. Neither am I.