Originally Posted by The Rani

You misunderstood what I meant. Attempting to discuss the issues is a waste of time.

Check it out, Bob, in the flurry of posts following your long, fact-filled one, do you see any sign of either side actually listening to the other, or just more bickering?

Hmm... Sometimes one can bring the conversation briefly out of the short snark posts into the issues. Sure didn't happen this time around. Agreed, if they are listening to each other, it is mostly to find a weakness in each other's defense so they can score points on some imaginary score board.

But I don't find it much worth my time to join the snark fest. The course seems to be locked in, at least for another Friedman Unit. Not sure there is a lot more to be said until we see the shape of the post ethnic cleansing combat and politics in Iraq. By the time the next wave of tactics on the ground becomes defined, the major wave of US primaries might have identified the major party major candidates.

We'll have to see what develops. I'm guessing we'll see a stalemate of terror along the lines of old Northern Ireland or modern Israel. Both major US parties will likely favor eternal peacekeeping. How painful will the bleeding be? If neither major party is going to pull our forces out, and there is lots of time between the major parties choosing candidates and the election, will a third party candidate try to step up?

The next Friedman Unit might be interesting.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

How circular can your reasoning be? You claim that something is an established fact without providing any proof. Have you got any evidence for your side?

The burden of proof is on you, since you are arguing the revisionist position. But since you don't recognize that, we'll do it the hard way.

There have been so many lies from this bunch it's had to know which ones to focus on, but since the heart of the Big Lie is Joe Wilson, we'll use him as our example. Fair warning, this posting will be quite long, I can't help it since it covers years of events.

The entire farce started when Joe Wilson published an op-ed in the New York Times, based on his trip to Niger. Here is Joe Wilson's op-ed, published Sunday, June 6th, 2003.

What I Didn't Find in Niger

Note that he makes several specific claims here, and some damned serious charges. Now, supposedly the original NYT op-ed was triggered by Bush's use of the infamous '16 words' in his 2002 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

(Note that the British intelligence services never changed their assessment on this matter. Also, later developments indicate that there was strong reason to suspect the Niger connection of being a serious problem:

European Intelligence Suggests Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger. This didn't get a whole lot of attention in the midst of the whole phony hysteria, but the story was published in July of 2004.)

Now, on July 14th 2003, Robert Novak, a critic of the Iraq War, published the following column:

Mission To Niger

In it, he observes:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Following this, Joe Wilson claimed that people in the Bush Administration had 'outed' his wife, who was supposedly operating under a security clearance, in revenge for his criticisms. That was the original claim that set the entire fake scandal in motion.

On October 1, 2003, Novak addressed this matter again:

The CIA Leak Case

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.

Right here, all the way back in 2003, Novak laid out the facts of the matter in everything but name. The 'senior administration official', we now know, was Richard Armitage.

The reason I emboldened Novak's comments about Wilson's political contributions was simply that Wilson tried to portray himself in his NYT op-ed as a former supporter of the Bush Administration, and much of the media coverage of Plame and Wilson portrayed them as being basically dissenting Republicans, when Wilson, at least, was basically a Democratic Party man by 2003. His free choice and right, but that fact was relevant to the story and largely left out of the coverage.

When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

The confirming official, it would later develop, was Karl Rove.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

Here again, the entire story was predicated on the initial glaring oddity of the idea of Joe Wilson being sent to Niger on such a mission in the first place.

Regarding Valerie Plame's status, Novak went on to say,

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A later off-hand reference by Andrea Mitchell, among other things, tends to lend additional credence to Novak's words here.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Note this. In later writings on the subject of the legal mess, even liberal commentators like David Corn and Michael Isikoff have recognized that whatever violation might have occurred was 'inadvertant'. That's being generous, it's highly unlikely that any legal violation occured at all, since there's no reason to think Plame was a covert operative in the sense that the laws in question mean that term.

In this column, Novak more-or-less laid out the entire situation, leaving out only the actual names. This was in October 2003, and Joe Wilson was starting to get warmed up on his ever-more-elaborate claims about the Bush Administration was out to get him and his wife.

Now, as Novak noted, there was something strange about Wilson's claims from the start. Why him? He had no particular qualifications for such a mission, he didn't work for the CIA in any official capacity. Why send just one man, and one without any particular technical qualifications?

Well, the answer was that contrary to his claims, and in support of Novak's explanation in October 2003, his wife recommended him:

Plame Input Cited on Niger Mission

This was published on July 10th, 2004. By that point we were a year into the whole fake scandal, and the press, led by the NYT, was doing their best to hype it as big and loud and nasty as they could possibly do it. The WaPo joined in, but held back a little bit, being less fanatical than the NYT. It was partly the pressure from the NYT that led to the appointment of a special prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the whole fiasco.

According to Armitage, he informed both Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, and Fitzgerald that he had been the leaker, and that it had been inadvertant. So Powell knew all along who the actual leaker was, and so did Fitzgerald.

Armitage Comments

He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger."

"I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says.

Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak.

"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however.

"First of all, I felt so terrible about what I'd done that I felt I deserved whatever was coming to me. And secondarily, I didn't need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth. I as already doing that," Armitage explains. "I was not intentionally outing anybody. As I say, I have tremendous respect for Ambassador. Wilson's African credentials. I didn't know anything about his wife and made an offhand comment. I didn't try to out anybody."

That was nearly three years ago, but the political firestorm over who leaked Valerie Plame's identity continued to burn as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began hauling White House officials and journalists before a grand jury.

Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."

Note that this was back at the start of this whole non-scandal, back in 2003, which means that the invesigators knew all along that Novak was telling the truth in October 2003.

Yet the 'investigation' went forward anyway.

Incidentally, Bush issued a written order to his entire administration to cooperate completely with Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald acknowledged on Fitzmas Day that this order had been obeyed.

By March of 2005 the whole thing was starting to look ridiculous. Even the liberal news agencies such as the big three networks, Newsweek, etc, filed an amicus curiae brief in the Miller/Cooper affair that their reporters should not be compeled to testify, since it was likely that no crime had been committed.

Yet the hysteria continued, driven by partisan Lefty bloggers, the organized '
peace movement', and the Democratic leadership hoping to use the former two for their own ends. As 'Fitzmas' approached, the hysteria began to approach a state of sheer mania. You can see the symptoms of that right here on the T4T forums if you go back and look at the thread postings on the matter from around mid-late 2005.

Here's a sample of how goofy it was getting:

Have A Merry Fitzmas

It wasn't just the bloggers, either, the big media figures were practically panting, too. Then came Fitzmas itself, or as I now call it, the Great Disappointment. There was nothing but an indictment of Libby on unrelated perjury.

For most of the country, that was the end of the Plame scandal. Fitzgerald made it crystal clear in his statements that day that the investigation was over. The grand juries were gone, no further indictments were planned, it was done other than the perjury indictment, and that over a an unrelated aspect of the case.

(Miind you, Fitzgerald told a couple of borderline lies at his press conference, too, by trying to imply that the Libby case somehow involved justice for revealing a covert ID which he knew was not the case.)

Yet it was at this point that things really got strange among the netroots, because apparently they just couldn't cope with that. For months afterward, the netroots were abuzz with wild speculations that Fitzgerald was still after Cheney or Rove, he was just trying to 'turn' Libby to Cheney, or maybe he was trying to indict Rove to 'turn' him against Cheney or Bush, or maybe or maybe or maybe...!!! This nonsense went on right into 2007 and up until fairly recently.

This was when the derisive 'nutroots' and 'moonbat' labels, originally mostly used by right-wingers to refer to the wilder kooks who thought the CIA knocked down the Twin Towers, or that ilk, started being applied to the left in general, as they entertained themselves with dreams of non-existent investigations and indictments.

Meanwhile Joe Wilson's whole story fell apart. On September 1, 2006, even the Washington Post finally editorialized:

End of an Affair

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

When even the WaPo admits it, the story is over. Most people had long since realized that Wilson was a fraud, other than the lefties who still tried desperately to tell themselves he was serious and telling the truth.

Of course the WaPo's editorial would be more morally secure if they themselves hadn't helped hype the whole thing. And they weren't the worst. Chris Matthews, who had eagerly played up Joe Wilson, was suddenly AWOL when it came time to covering the collapse of his claims. The best he could do was 'it's complicated'. The NYT pushed the whole story hard, so hard they ended up burning themselves with their own flamethrower (i.e. their reporters, the damage to the immunities of sources).

Of course there are always people who either can't cope with reality, or don't care about it, when the WaPo admitted that Wilson was a fraud, Keith Olberman claimed they'd 'thrown him under the bus'.

When this story broke, I myself pointed out in response to a comment from (IIRC) Eric Meese that there were three logical candidates for the identity of the 'leaker', someone at CIA, someone in the Bush Administration, or the Wilsons themselves. I was quite prepared to consider the possibility that someone had acted improperly or illegally in the Bush Administration, though I wanted proof, because I recognized that other equally likely possibilities existed.

Now, essentially all the claims that 'Bush lied', 'Bush manipulated intelligence', 'lied us into war', etc, from the Democratic leadership, the so-called 'peace movement', etc, were based on Wilson's claims about Niger. No matter how we look at it, the people making those claims come off badly. This includes such notables as Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and any number of members of various NGOs and pressure groups.

1. If they believed Wilson lies, then when he was revealed as a liar they owed Bush and the country an apology.

2. If they believed Wilson and still believe him, then they must either move to impeach Bush, no compromise, and oppose everything he tries to do in Iraq in a serious way, not just dog-and-pony resolutions, or else be assumed to think it's OK to lie the USA into a needless war.

3. If they didn't believe Wilson to start with, then they were taking part in the biggest organized lie in modern political history, in the middle of a war, for political gain.

The evidence, unfortunately, tilts toward option 3, with some of them probably falling into category 2 (like Dennis Kucinch, who to his credit at least seems to be prepared to match his kooky beliefs with appropriate words and actions).

That is why the left-wing establishment, the leadership of the Democrats and the organized 'peace movement' can be said to be established as liars. It's far from complete, I haven't even touched on Hurricane Katrina, the tornadoes in Kansas, their treatment of General Petraeus, Gitmo, or any number of other examples. Also, I only hit the high spots of why his claims about the uranium connection in Niger are bogus, because it's late and I'm tired. My list is far from complete.

The debate about whether 'Bush lied' about WMDs, or the sincerity of Joe Wilson, has for practical purposes been over for a long time. That's why I felt no particular urge to justify what I was saying, it was settled well over a year ago. But you wanted the evidence and I gave it to you.

The reason I don't do this sort of thing as often as I used to is that it takes a long time and it's a lot of work to debunk the huge volume of nonsense that has been put out by the netroots and the Democratic media as 'conventional wisdom'. It isn't all that hard, but it is very time-consuming.

I do for mine.

No, you don't. Or at least that link is worthless as evidence, because they open up with the same old lie about 'Bush lied'. They take Wolfowitz's comments out of context to support it, and they provide no evidence whatever to support the argument that Bush was dishonest in his presentations about the problems in Iraq.

What Wolfowitz argued, BTW, was not that the WMDs were a false argument, but only that they were the most straightfoward one. That other reasons also existed has never been a secret, and is in no sense sinister.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So your argument that Rich is a kook is the fact that he made predictions that didnt come true, hence everything he's ever written is delivered directly from cloud cuckoo land. Is that about it? If so, then every commentator that has ever made predictions is a kook, because perfection in prognostication is impossible.

Well, I happen to think Rich is a kook as well. Once you've met or bumped into enough kooks in your life. One tends to learn how to identify a kooky type without needing concrete evidence that prooves beyond all reasonable doubt that a particular person is a kook. He may not be a grade A kook, but if he's representing or promoting the kooks ideology or idea's well unfortunately he's a kook by default. I know this goes against liberalist beliefs and philosophy but as a majority we still live and judge people in the same manner as we have for centuries.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also see a lot of values filtering going on. It is natural for people to seek out information sources and associates who coming from those similar values, and find reasons to shun or disregard people and information sources that threaten their values.

Crises come to climax because people cling to old values past their time. Old values have to totally fail before many will abandon the past and start solving the problems staring them in the face. Until truly catastrophic failure is completely undeniable, it will be denied.

The lack of communications typical on these forum just illustrates the problem.

Well Bob, I see more of a territorial dispute vs a values thingy happening within the 4T. I just don't see the Aquarian blue values defeating the more traditional red values and purple values once the two are fully alligned in 2008 or 2012.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well Bob, I see more of a territorial dispute vs a values thingy happening within the 4T. I just don't see the Aquarian blue values defeating the more traditional red values and purple values once the two are fully aligned in 2008 or 2012.

I don't see any of the 3T value sets providing a clean answer to the 4T problems. Sure, you can find core basics in all three colors that will help, that one can build on. However, neither red, blue nor purple have neat solutions in hand.

I'm waiting on a time when solving the problems becomes more important than winning the ideological debates. For most people, that time has not yet come. Yes, it has been a fine tradition here to believe the 4T will be a time when one's old 3T values -- name your color -- will triumph over the scorned competing value set. I don't believe it. The problems are too new. None of the sets of old answers are apt to work. The 4T transformation is always greater than anticipated at the 3T 4T cusp. The degree to which we have no answers, none of us, name your color, reflects the amount of change that still lies ahead.

In the short term, in Iraq, we seem to have painted ourselves into a corner where the choice is between a slow holocaust with us stuck in the middle indefinitely, or a more intense but perhaps shorter holocaust with us out of the line of fire. I wish there were other options. I'm open to hearing other options. I'll insist, though, that it is prudent to pick up lessons learned so we avoid backing ourselves into the same corner repeatedly. Iraq still feels more a prequel than the main event. I don't think anyone ought to pretend Iraq represents The Best Of All Possible Worlds.

Don't you people ever get tired of the endless back-and-forth? These forums are a decade old, and the same personalities have been unmoved by the same arguments for years. I'm beginning to suspect that the Crisis will undeniably be here only when the T4T site falls silent -- because we'll all be too busy planting gardens, recycling scrap metal, and killing our neighbors in the name of God or Progress to post.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Personal abuse instead of arguments, ego tripping instead of trying to comprehend what's going on. Behaving like a sulky teenager is not impressive to anyone but you.

Now, I didn't say that the casualities had been steadily declining for a year, I said that the improving trend in Iraq goes back more than a year, to the turnaround in Anbar, which is true. The total casualty rate doesn't define success or failure. You implied that the 'one month decline in casualties' was the sole and only reason why the public didn't rally to the Democrats to pull out of Iraq, you implied that the decline in casualties was an isolated event unrelated to the rest of what's going on, and you implied that a concensus for surrender existed in the United States. You were wrong in all three assessments.

Incidentally, you implied upthread that the plan is to 'transfer responsibility' to the Iraqis. Yes. That's always been the goal, it's not secret or sinister. What changed over the last year (and which may yet change back, nobody knows yet) is that the chaos unleashed by the destructon of the Golden Mosque has receded, in response to changed tactics and strategies on the American forces' part, and on overreaching by the insurgents.


http://icasualties.org/oif/




More hollow insults, accompanied by a post that completely misses the point of what's been going on.

I accept your concession of defeat.

I'll just make a minor note of this -

There isn't a one-month decrease in casualties, the trend has been in place for nearly a year, with the first beginnings occuring in Anbar over a year ago.

I don't think anyone reading that would come away thinking that you were talking about something other than quantitative trends in casualties.

And one other minor note -- I provided six authors of books, some of them blockbusters, and you (and some other merry men) pick one to comment on. Is this an attempt to discredit all (and, me in turn) or were you going to get around to giving a critique of the other five?

But regardless, I was actually going to go back and soften my response considerable. That is, until I saw the response that it has provoked in you. Now we are getting somewhere - you can rub two sticks together. And, while I'm in almost complete disagreement with you on your latest Plame-related response, that too shows some active brain engagement. I am thankful to you. I don't have time to respond now but I will respectable get back to you later.

I can only hope that others on your side of the table can take your latest as a better model than what's been followed to date.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No, it's a good example of the fact that you don't get it. No doubt exists that Frank Rich is a kook, or else a cold-eyed liar. I'm sufficiently charitable to grant him the benefit of the doubt on that point.

This is the man who warned us all about the wave of anti-Semitic violence that would follow from the The Passion of the Christ. Remember all that anti-Semitiic violence?

He pushed the idea that 'Bush lied' about Iraq hard, but when it turned out that it was Wilson and Plame and the Democrats that were lying, he fell silent, never so much as a hint of an apology or recognition of what a fool he'd been played for.

But why should he? He's still spinning the notion that the Plame scandal was for real, or he was as recently as February 2007. That alone is enough to mark him as either a knowing accomplice in the Big Lie, or else a deluded sucker, because that fake 'scandal' has been over since Fitzmas.

Top it off with his eagerness to support the way that Fitzgerald railroaded Libby to cover his ass, and we have a choice of two possibilities: kook or liar.

When I add in his goofy predictions about violence from the Passion, I incline toward the former, it's more likely a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and a goofy world-view than genuine malice.

When you spin, your voume increases. Based on several years observing your posting modality, this is mid-grade spin.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Given that the anti-war position is based on systematic lies, the burden of making the primary case lies with them, and you. It's up to you to make the case for retreating.

Less spin here - good. Though the argument is close, you still miss-out on the cigar.

The burden on the critic is to show an ongoing pattern of error. That's been accomplished long ago. It is up to those making the errors to shown they were only in error - not lying. Only they know the sources they used and the state of mind they occupied when they ran their collective mouths. I can presume to know the motivation of the POTUS and his minions, since consistent errors tend to indicate intent, but I'll leave it to you to prove me wrong.

For HC -

First, to follow-up and to explain my near glee of your last response to me is that there seems to be a spark of possible logical thought on your side of the table. It has been a desert for some time here of nothing but the most infantile of remarks, boasting of insider knowledge, and often just incoherent mutterings from your “team.”

What is refreshing in your posts is that it provides some logical flow of the elements to an argument; this is even more so in your Plame-related piece. This provides some structure on which to debate and present facts and thoughts by which to judge in the marketplace of ideas. To further clarify, contrast this to postings by other members of your “team,” and I paraphrase –

I’ve seen kooks, I know kooks, and he is a kook. Wait! Hey, who brought that mirror in here?!

Everyone here just likes to argue about nothing, it’s a waste of time; I spent a lot of time here arguing with people that it’s a lot of arguing about nothing and that's wasted time; I don’t know why everyone wants to waste time here arguing with me or any one else when it’s a waste of time to argue but I will keep posting every fifth post and waste my time to argue with you all that it is a waste of time for people to argue about nothing because it’s a waste of time but its not important to me to waste my time arguing with you all that its a waste of time for you to waste your time arguing about nothing….will someone please talk to me?!

I was a soldier and I know those bad guys’ religion, you don’t know squat and anybody you might read don’t know squat. I know squat because like I use to do squats, you know, in the Army, after I got all educated up about them thar Muslim squats

Well yea, Bush suxs but hey, everybody suxs but the people here at 4T, they really sux. Sux, sux , sux. Oh, I’m such a bad boy. Oh, I’m so funny. Sux, sux, sux

So, hopefully, in contrast, you can see why yours is more than a bit refreshing.

However, there is more work to be done. Let’s move now beyond your achievement of the basic organization of an argument to how the elements should relate.

I’ll be back.

But again, good job!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Geez Bob, you and I aren't that far apart after all.

In what the two of you think about the outcome of the Fourth Turning, I'll have to agree. About how the two of you desire to comport yourselves on the forum, I'm not convinced. Even though that exchange was about as serious a one as I've seen from you in a long time and as down to Earth as I've seen from Bob in a long time, resulting in a productive conversation, you two still have very different motivations. Bob is here for serious discussion. You are here for the lulz.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't see any of the 3T value sets providing a clean answer to the 4T problems. Sure, you can find core basics in all three colors that will help, that one can build on. However, neither red, blue nor purple have neat solutions in hand.

I'm waiting on a time when solving the problems becomes more important than winning the ideological debates. For most people, that time has not yet come. Yes, it has been a fine tradition here to believe the 4T will be a time when one's old 3T values -- name your color -- will triumph over the scorned competing value set. I don't believe it. The problems are too new. None of the sets of old answers are apt to work. The 4T transformation is always greater than anticipated at the 3T 4T cusp. The degree to which we have no answers, none of us, name your color, reflects the amount of change that still lies ahead.

In the short term, in Iraq, we seem to have painted ourselves into a corner where the choice is between a slow holocaust with us stuck in the middle indefinitely, or a more intense but perhaps shorter holocaust with us out of the line of fire. I wish there were other options. I'm open to hearing other options. I'll insist, though, that it is prudent to pick up lessons learned so we avoid backing ourselves into the same corner repeatedly. Iraq still feels more a prequel than the main event. I don't think anyone ought to pretend Iraq represents The Best Of All Possible Worlds.

Well, I view Iraq as being a half hearted, conservative and cautious approach at resolving a long standing issue following the main event known as 9/11. Wether or not it will actually work is the open question that will be gradually answered over a period of time. The way I see it, we are currently offering the Islamics a path towards relative peace, if the offering is rejected, denied or god forbid we experience a large counter attack that terminates a mass number of American or European lives, hell will fall upon the Middle East and the adverse consequence of unleashing hell will create some issues here as well. So, I would suggest guru liberals who live in high places start discussing what has to be changed systematically to minimize human suffering at home as we potentially may be required to force a radical change in hearts and minds of radical Islam via gun point. BTW, don't tell me it doesn't ever work because it worked pretty good in World War II.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

In what the two of you think about the outcome of the Fourth Turning, I'll have to agree. About how the two of you desire to comport yourselves on the forum, I'm not convinced. Even though that exchange was about as serious a one as I've seen from you in a long time and as down to Earth as I've seen from Bob in a long time, resulting in a productive conversation, you two still have very different motivations. Bob is here for serious discussion. You are here for the lulz.

I wonder when the National Scrabble Association will accept "lulz" as a valid word. Any short word involving "z" is a good find.

Roadbldr, next time we play, shall we accept lulz?

Originally Posted by The Pervert

In what the two of you think about the outcome of the Fourth Turning, I'll have to agree. About how the two of you desire to comport yourselves on the forum, I'm not convinced. Even though that exchange was about as serious a one as I've seen from you in a long time and as down to Earth as I've seen from Bob in a long time, resulting in a productive conversation, you two still have very different motivations. Bob is here for serious discussion. You are here for the Luls

Nah, I've seen the serious side of Rani in action. I wouldn't be so quick to define her motives and classify her as just being in it for the thrills.

Originally Posted by The Rani

"... interesting or funny internet content."

Perfect.

Shall I convert being "here for the lulz" into a .sig line for you, Your Royal Hotness?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd say I'm here for both. Which is what some people can't figure out, they think you have to be one or the other.

I'm here for both as well, although I think I do a better job of distinguishing my serious discussion posts from my "here for the lulz" posts than you do.

The New York Times is reporting this news:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

However, very few in the U.S. will learn of this good news. The Times buried the story on page A-19. The rest of the media, of course, has followed suit.

If nobody heard the tree falling in the woods, did it really fall?

Make Walls, Not War

IN a surge of realism, the Senate has voted 75-23 to acknowledge that Iraq has broken up and cannot be put back together. The measure, co-sponsored by Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, and Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, supports a plan for Iraq to become a loose confederation of three regions — a Kurdish area in the north, a Shiite region in the south and a Sunni enclave in the center — with the national government in Baghdad having few powers other than to manage the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

While the nonbinding measure provoked strong reactions in Iraq and from the Bush administration, it actually called for exactly what Iraq’s Constitution already provides — and what is irrevocably becoming the reality on the ground.

The Kurdish-dominated provinces in the north are recognized in the Constitution as an existing federal region, while other parts of Iraq can also opt to form their own regions. Iraq’s regions are allowed their own Parliament and president, and may establish their own army. (Kurdistan’s army, the peshmerga, is nearly as large as the national army and far more capable.) While the central government has exclusive control over the national army and foreign affairs, regional law is superior to national law on almost everything else. The central government cannot even impose a tax.

Iraq’s minimalist Constitution is a reflection of a country without a common identity. The Shiites believe their majority entitles them to rule, and a vast majority of them support religious parties that would define Iraq as a Shiite state. Iraq’s Sunni Arabs cannot accept their country being defined by a rival branch of Islam and ruled by parties they see as aligned with Iran. And the Kurdish vision of Iraq is of a country that does not include them.

Originally Posted by zilch

The New York Times is reporting this news:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

In related news:

PUSHKIN, Nov. 10 -- It has been irrefutably demonstrated this early morning that Italian-Lithuanians are the greatest human beings ever to walk the face of the earth, a top Italian-Lithuanian of American birth said today, allowing the rest of the lesser humans to better understand their place in the world as makers and servers of tacos to their aforementioned superiors.

(I see this was even more deeply buried than your Iraq "story". Literally, only one website has even bothered to report it.)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

(Note that the British intelligence services never changed their assessment on this matter. Also, later developments indicate that there was strong reason to suspect the Niger connection of being a serious problem:

European Intelligence Suggests Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger. This didn't get a whole lot of attention in the midst of the whole phony hysteria, but the story was published in July of 2004.)

Dude, this article says the documents were a forgery and therefore supports that the British government is either lying or unwilling to admit a mistake. Maybe you should try to use links that back up your case?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Now, on July 14th 2003, Robert Novak, a critic of the Iraq War, published the following column:

Mission To Niger


On October 1, 2003, Novak addressed this matter again:

The CIA Leak Case

Regarding Valerie Plame's status, Novak went on to say,

Do you have anything on this other than Novak links? For one, Novak was a central player in all of this. This is as unbiased a source as Wilson himself. Two, as I have pointed out in another recent post (one I linked for you recently) Novak, even if he may have had problems with the Iraq War, still shills for the administration on this. For example, Marc qouted him as saying the administration never agreed with "imminent" or "immediate" when describing the Iraqi "threat". I have clearly shown that they did. Many times.

So please find someone more credible than Novak. Logic dictates that his accounting and reporting don't amount to much.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

A later off-hand reference by Andrea Mitchell, among other things, tends to lend additional credence to Novak's words here.

Ooooh. Unofficial source from the CIA! First off, got anything . . . official HC? Second, no butt-covering possibly going on here, eh?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Note this. In later writings on the subject of the legal mess, even liberal commentators like David Corn and Michael Isikoff have recognized that whatever violation might have occurred was 'inadvertant'.

Armitage may have done it inadverdantly.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That's being generous, it's highly unlikely that any legal violation occured at all, since there's no reason to think Plame was a covert operative in the sense that the laws in question mean that term.

You have yet to cite credible sources for this. If you get to quote Novak and "unofficial" CIA sources in "offhand" comments, then Wilson and other "unofficial" comments get equal weight and counter yours. Start from scratch, dude.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Well, the answer was that contrary to his claims, and in support of Novak's explanation in October 2003, his wife recommended him:

Plame Input Cited on Niger Mission

Interesting. This fellow points out that Susan Schmidt should have done her homework a little better.

This is one of those cases in which it's helpful to actually read the report rather than just run with what you've got from the majority committee staffer who gave you the spin.

And yes, that link is to a "left of center" blog. But take a close look at what he points out, and then read the actual report WaPo is addressing here. As you will see, he is right on the money. Your point is gone.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

According to Armitage, he informed both Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, and Fitzgerald that he had been the leaker, and that it had been inadvertant. So Powell knew all along who the actual leaker was, and so did Fitzgerald.

Armitage Comments

Note that this was back at the start of this whole non-scandal, back in 2003, which means that the invesigators knew all along that Novak was telling the truth in October 2003.

First off, you're quoting another player. Second, this does not mean that Fitzgerald was not sincerely investigating wrongdoing surrounding this involving Libby and Rove once he looked into all of this. Oh, BTW, Libby was convicted of lying to cover up something his boss did, and then your boy pardoned him. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder what Cheney did?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Here's a sample of how goofy it was getting:

Have A Merry Fitzmas

WTF? What does this even mean? What relevence could this possibly have?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There was nothing but an indictment of Libby on unrelated perjury.

Prove it's unrelated. We don't know if it unrelated, because we don't know what Libby was covering up for.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

For most of the country that was the end of the Plame scandal.. . .

Ah, but what an impact it ended up having. The "country" does not seem to agree that nothing wrong happened there.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

This was when the derisive 'nutroots' and 'moonbat' labels, originally mostly used by right-wingers to refer to the wilder kooks who thought the CIA knocked down the Twin Towers, or that ilk, started being applied to the left in general, as they entertained themselves with dreams of non-existent investigations and indictments.

Looks to me more like an act of desperation on the Right.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Meanwhile Joe Wilson's whole story fell apart. On September 1, 2006, even the Washington Post finally editorialized:

End of an Affair

Yes, this is an editorial. An opinion. You are very good at citing opinion. But you have not given us much else here.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The That is why the left-wing establishment, the leadership of the Democrats and the organized 'peace movement' can be said to be established as liars.

Hey, I'm not going to challenge you on the purity of the Democrats or the Left, but you have proven nothing here.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The debate about whether 'Bush lied' about WMDs, or the sincerity of Joe Wilson, has for practical purposes been over for a long time. That's why I felt no particular urge to justify what I was saying, it was settled well over a year ago. But you wanted the evidence and I gave it to you.

Where?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The reason I don't do this sort of thing as often as I used to is that it takes a long time and it's a lot of work to debunk the huge volume of nonsense that has been put out by the netroots and the Democratic media as 'conventional wisdom'. It isn't all that hard, but it is very time-consuming.

Agreed. So if you don't have anything to show please stop wasting our time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

PUSHKIN, Nov. 10 -- It has been irrefutably demonstrated this early morning that Italian-Lithuanians are the greatest human beings ever to walk the face of the earth, a top Italian-Lithuanian of American birth said today, allowing the rest of the lesser humans to better understand their place in the world as makers and servers of tacos to their aforementioned superiors.

(I see this was even more deeply buried than your Iraq "story". Literally, only one website has even bothered to report it.)

LOL !!!!!!!!!!

Long live the Kingdom of Iraq! Long live King Ra'ad! Long live the Hashemites!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In related news:

PUSHKIN, Nov. 10 -- It has been irrefutably demonstrated this early morning that Italian-Lithuanians are the greatest human beings ever to walk the face of the earth, a top Italian-Lithuanian of American birth said today, allowing the rest of the lesser humans to better understand their place in the world as makers and servers of tacos to their aforementioned superiors.

(I see this was even more deeply buried than your Iraq "story". Literally, only one website has even bothered to report it.)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, I view Iraq as being a half hearted, conservative and cautious approach at resolving a long standing issue following the main event known as 9/11. Wether or not it will actually work is the open question that will be gradually answered over a period of time. The way I see it, we are currently offering the Islamics a path towards relative peace, if the offering is rejected, denied or god forbid we experience a large counter attack that terminates a mass number of American or European lives, hell will fall upon the Middle East and the adverse consequence of unleashing hell will create some issues here as well. So, I would suggest guru liberals who live in high places start discussing what has to be changed systematically to minimize human suffering at home as we potentially may be required to force a radical change in hearts and minds of radical Islam via gun point. BTW, don't tell me it doesn't ever work because it worked pretty good in World War II.

World War II was dominated by 2GW. The basic tools included tank divisions, strategic air wings and carrier task forces. Today we are dealing with 4GW. We have insurgents blending with the population, assault rifles and IEDs as the dominant weapons systems. Destroying or capturing the means to make more tanks, bombers and ships will not make it clear that the conflict has been lost.

After September 11th, we didn't acquiesce to Al Qaida's demands, we got angry and resolved to fight back. This is not a unique American trait. It is a pretty broad human trait. In a fourth turning environment, I expect an escalating spiral of violence, starting with verbal sparring, escalating through increasingly violent protests into all out war resulting in massive devastation on the scale of Atlanta 1864 or Berlin 1945.

And that is the scale of violence and destruction required for many humans to reconsider their values. Only then will a population as a whole accept a forced values shift. The entire civilization must be reduced to hollowed out charred shells. Yes, you can change cultures at gunpoint, but the culture being transformed will give it their all first. They must blatantly see that their all is getting them utterly and completely destroyed.

And I ask, if we help all factions in Iraq build armored ghettoes, and station our troops between the several sides, how long will it take to produce enough hollowed out charred shells such that cultural change takes place? If we go into an Israel - Northern Ireland style walled terrorist stalemate, the result will not be as intense, cathartic and brief World War II. The conflict could very well simmer on bloody for many decades.

In short, I am very dubious about an 'On to Richmond' simple military solution that doesn't involve turning the culture upside down to acknowledge the new realities. My benchmarks are not the same as many others. Young males have to have a better path towards family, a place in the economy and respect in the community than by picking up a gun and joining the local warlord. There must be enough freedom of movement and security for the economy to work. The surge's ghetto walls and protective forces are cutting down the casualties, but they seem not to be building a sustainable economy and culture.

Frankly, I don't see right now a reasonable way to get there from here. The basic problem is that chaos gives power to the local warlords. Any long term plan resulting in peace, plenty and security involves ending the chaos and taking power from the local warlords. The local warlords won't like that. In Iraq, the ultimate balance of power is still with the politicians backed by the most insurgent warlords. Tank divisions, carrier battle groups and strategic air wings are useless when trying to break that basic problem with 4GW insurgency. The 4T values may have to be centered on breaking the local warlords.

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

Make Walls, Not War

IN a surge of realism, the Senate has voted 75-23 to acknowledge that Iraq has broken up and cannot be put back together. The measure, co-sponsored by Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, and Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, supports a plan for Iraq to become a loose confederation of three regions — a Kurdish area in the north, a Shiite region in the south and a Sunni enclave in the center — with the national government in Baghdad having few powers other than to manage the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

This is a plausible next direction should the ethnic cleansing force everyone out of mixed neighborhoods into pure settlements. Kurdistan is half way there, assuming they don't annoy Turkey too badly. The Sunni enclave is well on its way to forming, with the joint Sunni American efforts to subdue Al Qaida followed by significant US withdrawals from Sunni areas.

One problem would be the Shiite majority coupled with multiple Shiite factions. If the Shiites could agree to reasonably share the oil revenue and allow Sunni and Kurdish self rule, great. Thing is, there is the temptation of having a clear majority, and thus being able to keep more than a reasonable share of power and wealth.

Thus, two political problems. Creating a united Shiite block, and getting them to agree on a reasonable partition with those outside the block. I haven't looked at the 18 benchmarks the US has tried to push the Iraqis towards, but I suspect it just isn't happening. Passing a non binding referendum is nice, but the wishing isn't making it so.

And there are the external considerations. Will Turkey and Kurdistan coexist. Will Iran try for too much influence in the Shiite partition? Will Saudi Arabia be too strong a champion for the Sunni partition?

And if the big boy politicians working at the national level agree to some compromise that seems reasonable to them, will it also seem reasonable to the local warlords?

Congress may be more or less right, but it won't be easy.