Rounding Another Corner In Iraq

This is news unlike what we are used to coming out of Iraq. It suggests much better intelligence, an on going trend - and that a divide and conquer strategy is working. With Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq, getting the rogue Shia weeded out is major.

Just 24 hours after the capture of 11 Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in northern Baghdad, the Iraqi Army has freed eight of the sheikhs. Meanwhile, Multinational forces Iraq has identified the Mahdi Army commander responsible for the kidnappings, and has begun to name other Mahdi Army leaders as being involved in criminal and insurgent activity.

Comments

[Terry Gain]

Dan

I'm concerned about the impact of all this good news (for patriots) on the health of our beloved boob. It's going to be a real shock to his system when he discovers in 2008 that it looks like his vision of 2013. Can we not start some kind of intervention to help him cope with the this body blow?

SurgeOn.

[Fred Beloit]

May I suggest the Boob obtain a scarf made of mail, the stuff the old knights wore to protect the unarmored parts of their anatomies. This would prevent him from biting himself to death in the back of his neck.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa041500a.htm

[Fred Beloit]

HHHMMM. A mail hijab, as it were.

[jay k.]

excellent news...so we can begin drawing down our troops and stop running up our debit spending immmediately...correct?

[Philadelphia Steve]

Great.

Now the violence in Iraq is "down" to the levels of early 2006.

And NeoConservatives everywhere will declare it evidence of the vast brilliance and competence on the part of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

Conservatives have lowered the bar so far regarding the performance of the Bush Administration that it is laying on the ground.

And now they want to repeat their "success" in Iran, a country more than three times the size of Iraq.

I can't wait to see how many "corners" we'll turn there.

[madmatt]

We didn't rescue anybody, the sunni's were released, the shiites killed....

[Fred Beloit]

Say, jay, steve, when are you two going to start working to get our troops out of Korea and Germany? Remember the limerick about the old hermit named Dave? "...but think of the money I save."

[Fred Beloit]

jay, we'll never be able to, "...stop running up our debit spending..." while King Piggy Pork Murtha is in the Congress. He's using your money and mine to enrich his home town. Wake up wrong people!

[scarshapedstar]

Shouldn't that be "divide and liberate"?

[jay k.]

fred...
how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment there cost us?
we couldn't leave iraq last week because we were on the verge of winning. now we can't leave because we are in germany and korea?
murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus. the commander in chief you love to worship spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman, and you blame murtha. your blind loyalty is admirable, if dangerous.

[chris]

Amazing. The victories just keep happening. 8 of 18 provinces are now under Iraqi CONTROL. By 2013, the Iraqis could have their country back! What a victory. Words cannot express my pride.

[mike filanca]

Gee, I'm trying to keep up here. The Sunnis were the supporters of Sadaam Hussein. They were also killing our soldiers until recently when the brilliant Bush team started giving them weapons and money (to fight the Shia). Al Queda is Sunni, basically. Shia are the majority in Iraq, as they are in Iran. So if we support the Sunnis, we are basically doing what Sadaam did and stepping on the majority (of Shia). We are also supporting Al Quaeda by supporting Sunnis. These kinds of complications are exactly what was overlooked and ignored by our idiot president and among many reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

[jay k.]

actually chris...by 2013 iran will finally have full control of iraq with the exception of the kurdish north which will be engaged in war with turkey. words cannot express my pride.

[Ms Snarky Doucher]

jay (aka nowingker) writes: "spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman". Now, jay, it is national "guardsperson". If you are going to slur the Guard, why not do it right, be inclusive.

And, she writes: "how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment[sic] there cost us?"

Are you suggesting that we keep troops in Korea and Germany indefinitely, because it doesn't cost much and because there is no fighting going on there? Gee, I always thought we sent troops to a war zone to engage in battle. What a dope I am. Or is it nowinker who is the dope. Wake up wrong people!

[Lala]

"budget surplus"
very funny.

[Fred Beloit]

"murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus." Jay, "Not at this time" Murtha, now this is just for your information get me, is the biggest pork barrel trader in Congress. If you asked him, he'd probably agree that he brought the most federal dollars (your dollars, my dollars) home to his district. He's proud of it! Wake up and wise up wretchedly wrong people.

[jay k.]

i wouldn't slur the guard...i leave that to folks like rush limbaugh. i was slurring a specific drunken awol air national guardsman turned cowboy from new haven who is afraid of horses and has a hat and boots and a big belt buckle but no cattle.
we have had troops stationed in germany and korea for a very long time. you want to debate that decades old policy...have at it. it's apples and oranges though. i have noticed in the past several years though that the extreme right does enjoy false comparisons...it's the only way to make their arguments hold water.

[Philadelphia Steve]

Re: "Say, jay, steve, when are you two going to start working to get our troops out of Korea and Germany? "

When our soldiers start dying in the same numbers as in Iraq to prop up a corrupt, religious fundamentalist government that exists only in the Green Zone. That's when.

The occupations of Germany, Japan and Austria after WW II were competentently (generally) performed. The occupation of Iraq was so incompetently executed that the country is irretrievable broken. And Conservatives want to open another front in Iran, just like Iraq.

Conservatives continue to insist that, if they just wish hard enough, and write speeches that are inflamatory enough, America will send them a blank check, no matter how much they waste and botch everything they ever do.

[Philadelphia Steve]

Re: "Murtha, now this is just for your information get me, is the biggest pork barrel trader in Congress."

Ever hear of a guy names Ted Stevens, of Alaska? $400 million bridges to nowhere?

Oh yeah! He's a REPUBLICAN. So he gets the automatic Conservative FREE PASS, doesn't he?

[Fred Beloit]

And the top ten myths about the war:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

This will keep you anti-Americans busy for a few minutes. See you later for more fun.

[jay k.]

lieberman got re-elected on how much money he brought home. i say lets get rid of the senior senator from isreal.

[jay k.]

fred is funny...if you don't agree with him then you are wretchedly wrong thinking and anti-american. so typical of the far extreme right.

[chris]

Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter.

[jay k.]

chris...now let's be fair...you don't know that he lives in a trailer.

[Philadelphia Steve]

How does "Conservative" Trent Lott (Mississippi) stand up in the realm of not living off the federal trough?

http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eand94/eand94h.html

But then, he's a REPUBLICAN, so Conservatives kept their mouths shut as long as Republicans controlled Congress.

[ET]

boob/chris/steve/jay...where is your brave democrat leadership? Have they de-funded the war? What steps has congress taken to save us from the evil Bush juggernaut? What will your democratic presidential candidates do in Iraq if elected? Pull the troops home? Not a chance. It is down to you and cindy sheehan...good luck with that crazy loon.

Face it: You lost this debate. You are wrong about Iraq and our mission there. Normal democrats understand this, but are too dishonest to admit it. You are beyond fringe. You are marginalized and irrelevant. We only come here to rub your noses in it because your ignorance makes you such easy targets. Soon, even we will tire of the sport and you will be left pissing in the wind...

Liberals suck.

[seekeronos]

In reference to the commentary concerning troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan...

Germany: After a bombing campaign and a war conducted in grand, "total" fashion -- where 1 building out of three was completely destroyed beyond any hope of repair, and nearly all of its industrial and a very high percentage of its residential areas destroyed, to say nothing of the complete collapse of the 3d.Reich - it is almost axiomatic that the Germans themselves were utterly demoralized and defeated. Only the most hardcore SS continued any resistance after the cease-fire in May-July of 1945; these futile attempts to fight the overwhelming force of occupation by either the Allies or the Soviets were very few and far between. Most were captured and many of them killed with utmost prejudice (vae victis) whilst most higher ranking NSDAP members who did not surrender themselves, attempted to escape out of Europe to meet with whatever their historical ends have been documented, facing certain death and/or incarceration through the determined efforts of Nazi hunters and the like.

In short, the people were so broken, that any further resistance was regarded as insanity. There are also social psychological aspects to this, in that Germans typically abhor suicidal measures.

While the Cold War with the Soviet Union required an extensive US presence for nearly 50 years, this also had the of relieving Germany (and much of NATO, to a somewhat lesser extent) from having to rebuild its shattered military, to say nothing of quelling European angst over a re-militarized Germany within one or two generations of the fall of the 3d.Reich. The cost savings of not having to pump double-digit percentages of its GDP to defense issues also contributed in large measure to the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) of the 1950s-60s.

Arguably, with the Cold War Threat in remission (pending further aggressive movements from Putin, or a sharpening of an ongoing aggressive trend in Russian foreign policy) -- there is no need for the extensive "occupation" framework to support forces on the order of REFORGER or even much beyond a few forward ops locations, while Germany and France (and the Scandinavian nations) are roundly encouraged to funnel significant amounts of their economic might to building a common EU military, or increasing their own independent militaries under NATO; thus freeing substantial US forces to be massed in SW Asia.

Japan: Like Germany in most regards after the war; a broken people without hope - whose willingness to support the extremely repressive militarist regime was conditional with the (apparent) assent of their god: the Japanese Emperor. Except but those words of his which called upon the Japanese to "bear the unbearable" ... that is, the complete and utter loss of the war to the Allies and specifically the anticipated occupation by the USA) - most people would have stealed themselves with grim determination to fight for their sacred land and their gods (and their ancestors who lived on as gods). Perhaps even resorting to techniques we currently view as those employed by terrorists, as called for by "Operation Ketsugō".

Between 1867-1945, the captains of state steered the "cult of the Tennō Heika" (a term referring to the Emperor in his 'capacity' as the Divine God-King of Heaven and Earth - a title which is still used today). Developing this concept of Arahitogami, or the incarnation of the person of the Emperor as a living god, was key to manipulating the lower classes into nothing short of blind obedience to the whim of the militarists and Zaibatsu commercial cliques of the Taishō and early Shōwa periods (1912-1945). This only built upon the earlier work of Katsura Kogorō (Kido Takayoshi), Itō Hirobumi, Ōkubo Toshimichi and others of the so-called heroes of the Bakamatsu Revolution and Imperial Restoration (Meiji Isshin) who had used the Emperor as a rallying point for popular support against the Tokugawa Shōgunate. After deposing the last Shōgun, the concept of a unified state for Japan could only rest upon a religious construct (Kokka, or State Shintō) with the Emperor at its head - roughly paralleling the role enjoyed by medieval papal authority with far greater efficiency.

This same Imperial Cult stood behind the galvanization of the peasants to look beyond their plots of land, their villages, and formerly, their hans (domains), but rather to the State and its god.

I think that even the threat of Soviet intervention and even invasion of the Home Islands (which I believe was a far more potent motivating factor than the two nuclear detonations - although not discounting their role either) would not have moved the average Japanese from meeting a grim end in house to house fighting and the scouring of the rugged and remote mountains from which the most persistent resistance could have functioned for a great many years... in vain hopes of wearing down the Allies. More likely, the USA might have continued nuking cities and then the Kantō and Kansai plains themselves to destroy the food production capacity, effectively besieging the island for several years until most people had died of starvation or radiation sickness.

Could the US have done such a merciless thing? In that era and political climate, I'd say definitely so. We fought brutal and ugly wars that thought little of feeding tens of thousands of souls into a meat grinder for the sake of liberty and freedom, that millions might be free. And many of those sacrificed souls did so willingly, or not with such great resolve distilled through generations of historical glorification, at the very least they followed orders and looked for the "get it done" aspect of bringing the war home to the aggressors and finishing it.

Vae Victis applies particularly to that time; had the 3d.Reich achieved victory, and Yamamoto Isoroku's oft-misquoted statement about "dictating surrender terms in Washington DC" borne been true, and the Allie commanders judged in war crimes trials, folks like "Bomber Harris" and "Butcher (Curtis) LeMay" as well as FDR and Winston Churchill might have been the ones to have swung from ropes at war's end.

Yet, for all the evil visited upon that beautiful land, today, it stands as a solid brother nation - and with encouragement and diplomacy, may yet be called to shed the youthful garments of a time where Japan was forbidden from possessing a large standing military and nuclear deterrent by both the Allies and its very nervous neighbours. Yet with a resurgent China and an unstable Korean peninsula, Japan must be able to assert her self in the region that to deter violence against her people - while the USA slowly draws down its physical presence aside from maintaining FOL bases and such infrastructure as needed to quickly re-deploy in time of great need.

South Korea: While South Korea (hereinafter: ROK) never suffered as a target of the Allies in WW2, it has existed under threat of attack from the DPRK (the Norks) since the cease-fire in the 1950s. Until power passes from the current regime to a successor or successor party that can be more easily reasoned with, or until the DPRK can be finally pushed into imploding upon itself, a standing US presence will be necessary. There is little threat of Islamist terrorism as we are fighting in SW Asia, but the ability to present containment of the DPRK must be maintained.

In like manner, Iraq is occupied, and yes - it is qualitatively different from either the Japanese or German occupations, in that (a) Allah is not a living deity who can be bent as the former Shōwa Emperor was, nor the people subject to the harsh penalties of total war visited upon Hitler's Reich to the same degree of brokenness. In fact, such a harsh, the total war ethic might have proven injurious, no, _disastrous_ to any occupation effort, with Americans being perceived as evildoers and menaces, as opposed to their current overall coordination with American forces to rid their nation of Islamist terrorist factions.

Iran may need to be handled even differently as well, given a not-overly publicized anti-cleric/anti-Ahmadinejad/anti-revolutionary movement among Persian youth and younger men.People with thicker glasses and bigger than average brains and niftier slide rules -- folks generally smarter than the average American and well-paid to do interesting things -- are looking into this aspect even now. Perhaps especially so, given the scrutiny their intelligence has already been subjected to.

[seekeronos]

Jay K.:

In case you missed it, "chris", "BobinStamford", "CarlSpackler", "Artie", and "Kelvin" are but a handful of the personalities of the same guy who posts here.

There are some liberals here who can actually engage in intelligent discourse here, but as you might see from parsing some of the other posts that he replies to, "chris" et. al. is more often than not one of them.

On rare occasion he actually says something meaningful; in the year or so I've seen him and his various incarnations comment-trolling this site, I think which can be counted by an integer between 1 and 2.

When he really gets stumped, he starts turning out the trailer park epithets and vulgar statements like a speed freak looking for his next hit.

[rwilymz]

"how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment there cost us?"

It costs billions to remain in Germany [Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the Balkans] and Korea each year.

"murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus"

Are you going to suggest he caused it? If so, you'd be wrong.

"the commander in chief ... spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman"

That he does. Yes.

"and you blame murtha. your blind loyalty is admirable, if dangerous."

No more dangerous than your own. No more disingenuous, either.

"Al Queda is Sunni, basically"

That's like saying "Mormons are Protestants, basically."

"These kinds of complications are exactly what was overlooked and ignored by our idiot president and among many reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place."

Excuse me, Mr Filanca, but what you are calling "complications" are deliberate, and not to mention completely ludicrous, oversimplifications.

If you can't speak more knowledgeably about the subject than this, you shouldn't even attempt to insinuate yourself into it.

"we have had troops stationed in germany and korea for a very long time. you want to debate that decades old policy...have at it. it's apples and oranges though."

Depends on which foreign deployment you're talking about. Germany is oranges to the Iraqi apple, yes. Korea is, though, a Granny Smith apple to the Iraqi Macintosh apple.

We are babysitting Li'l Kim and the Pompadours pursuant to cease-fire and a 54 year old commitment to the UN that we cannot get out of. We were babysitting Hussein ditto. The difference between the two is that Iraq violated the terms of their cease fire; Korea hasn't.

"i have noticed in the past several years though that the extreme right does enjoy false comparisons"

So Mike Filanca is from the "extreme right"? Him and his "Sunni = al Qaida" shinola?

"When our soldiers start dying in the same numbers as in Iraq to prop up a corrupt, religious fundamentalist government that exists only in the Green Zone. That's when."

Ahhhhh! So our soldiers are to be used for parades and such stuff; but when the bullets start flying, that's when we hide them! Good plan.

"The occupations of Germany, Japan and Austria after WW II were competentently (generally) performed."

No; they were *brutally* performed. When German nazi or Japanese imperial recidivists acted up, they were holed up in worse-then-Abu Ghraib conditions. That's what you didn't get from the media in the 40s and early 50s. That's what the media delights in giving today. The occupation of Iraq is orders of magnitude tamer than the occupations of Germany or Japan, but we delight in a-contextual history in this country in this era.

And Conservatives want to open another front in Iran, just like Iraq.

To listen to "liberal" politicians, a number of them do as well. Or at least they did two years ago. Remember when this country's liberals were saying that we should have waited for the "real" enemy, Iran? instead of going off half-cocked on Iraq?

Remember?

Of course not; it's too uncomfortable.

Not to mention, to listen to Germany and France, they do as well.

[Philadelphia Steve]

Re: "boob/chris/steve/jay...where is your brave democrat leadership? Have they de-funded the war? "

The fact that the Democratic leadership in Congress has failed to prevent President Bush from continuing his debacle in Iraq is a testament to the near lockstep loyalty that Republicans continue to show to the White House.

However that does not in any way increase the competence of Geroge W. Bush one iota.

He has still bungled his way into tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths and an occupation that was supposed to be paid for by "Iraqi oil money" now costing American $3 billion a week. (Meaning every three months, Bush's incompetence costs more than the five-year cost of the SCHIP bill he vetoed as "too expensive").

So, yes, you can make fun of the fact that Democrats cannot override the Loyal Bushies in the Senate and thier fillibusters and sustaining of presidential vetoes.

However Geroge W. Bush is still incompetent, and many have died since Mr. Bush dared insurgents to kill Americans with his boast, "Bring 'em on!"

But Conservatives everywhere are so proud of that remark, aren't they?

[rwilymz]

"However that does not in any way increase the competence of Geroge W. Bush one iota."

I keep hearing about this "incompetence" of the guy. Yet no one can explain it satisfactorily.

Many claim he's incompetent because he started a war in Iraq. Yet that's what he tried to do. Sounds competent to me.

Others claim it's because he hasn't satisfied their social policy demands that it proves his incompetence. Yet it's doubtful he was trying to; he was, though, trying to accomplish other social policy effects, and he largely did so. More competence.

Others are more honest about it, and have equivocated "incompetence" to "doing things I didn't want him to do". Which is as close to accurate as any of his critics have been over the past 7 years.

So, would you be so be so kind as to describe which false version of "incompetent" you are throwing around, please, Stevie?

[Philadelphia Steve]

Re: "Ahhhhh! So our soldiers are to be used for parades and such stuff; but when the bullets start flying, that's when we hide them! Good plan."

No.

But I also do not wish to see them continue to be mangled and die solely because George W. Bush will get his feelings hurt if he has to publicly admit he screwed up.

It is one thing to make a hard decision that will lead to the death of others. It is quite another when, through hubris and incompetence, thousands die. It is especially serious when those deaths are continued just because the fragile ego of President Bush has to be preserved through January 2009.

Donald Rumsfeld declared, in June 2003, that he did not expect the occupation to last more than six months. However his botched occupation, where the Ministry of Oil was secured day one, and the Iraqi Army weapons depots were left unguarded for months, can be directly linked to the rise of an insurgency and civil war that is now claiming American and Iraqi lives, and costing $180+ billion a year.

But Conservatives everywhere, lead by Dick Cheney, declared that Mr. Rumsfeld was the "greatest Defense Secretary in History"... At least until George W. Bush dumped him after the 2006 elections.

And, while the "Surge" has proven that the American Army can control areas where they patrol (and kill many Iraqis through air strikes), it has failed to deliver the solution that President Bush gave as his reason for starting it: An Iraqi government that can control anywhere outside of the Green Zone.

So, now we are arming the Sunni militias, so they can oust al Qaeda elements (which the US Military assesment of July 2007 pegged at between 6 and 10% of the insurgency). And from there the Sunnis will, of course, go on to fight their civil war with the similarly US equipped and trained Shia militias.

Great. America is training, paying and equipping both sides of a civil war, and likely to be shot from both sides. And later we can do the same things when Turkey goes to war with Kurdistan.

The botched results of Iraq goes on and on, beyond the "lost" $9 billin in cash that was flown to Baghdad after it fell, and promptly dissapeared with no trace... To $2 billino paid to train Iraqi police for which the State Department can find absolutely no documentable results.

When someone has proven himself to be so completely inept at his job, he is usually fired. We cannot fire George W. Bush because the 100% loyalty of the Republican party will prevent it. But we, at least those of us who honestly review his results, should not continue the Conservative policy of 100% blind loyalty to George W. Bush and complete pretence that he actually is up to the job of "Wartime President".

He isn't. It is obvious. Only blind party loyalty blocks every single Conservative from admitting so.

[seekeronos]

Better to have loyalty to a cause which occassionally errs, but generally performs well (GOP).... than to figure out how to get everyone to herd their cats in the same direction and generally do not much of anything (DemCong i.e. Democrat Congress).

[rwilymz]

"But I also do not wish to see them continue to be mangled and die solely because George W. Bush will get his feelings hurt if he has to publicly admit he screwed up."

What did he "screw up"? You're awful quick with the value judgments, but I've seen a huge dearth of substance behind them, save for the grand weight of your mighty **opinion**.

"now we are arming the Sunni militias, ... from there the Sunnis will, of course, go on to fight their civil war with the similarly US equipped and trained Shia militias."

The Shia militias are being armed and trained by Iran. Really; it's been in all the papers.

Don't you remember back when the press delighted in pointing out how it was US "failure" in Iraq that allowed Iran the capacity to arm and train a half dozen different factions of militia?

"America is training, paying and equipping both sides of a civil war, and likely to be shot from both sides."

You want to rethink any of this? Exactly how much are you willing to advertise yourself unfamiliar with in order to ping a prez you don't like?

Don't you remember when it was *another* US "failure" that allowed Iraq to fall into a civil war in the first place and make greater targets of themSELVES than us? ...as if we *should* be the preferred target in their civil war?

Well, we aren't. they are killing themselves hand over fist. It is a twelve-sided civil war, between various factions of folks who all hate us and would like to shoot at us ... if only they weren't too busy indulging their millenia-old grievances against each other! Darn the luck!

When US troops get shot at in Iraq *today* -- not three years ago, **today** -- it is more than likely because they got in between two or more groups of yahoos having a gangwar.

"And later we can do the same things when Turkey goes to war with
Kurdistan."

Kurdi-what? Oh, you mean the faux-"nation" invented by meddlesome western neophytes to make up for the first batch of meddlesome post-colonial western neophytes carving up the planet into faux-"nations"?

Yes. Tribalism is a bugaboo, idnit? And when left in their own corners of the world, certain brands of tribalists get all hot under the collar about "superpower" countries being all *economic* and everything; but when that superpower dropkicks the hornet's nest and brings those tribalists out into the open, those tribalists discover they don't like each other at least as much as they don't like the "superpower", ... and that they are easier to kill. And so they do. With great dispatch.

And this is somehow, mysteriously, a measure of *our* ineptitude. Tribalists being easily manipulable hotheads for 10,000 years is *our doing* in the early 21 century.

Yep.

Gotcha.

It's all so clear now.

[gil]

OH yes!!

Good news at last from Iraq.

Now all we need is just another Trillion Dollars or two, so that we can start bringing our troops back home..... Altough our troops might reach retirement age before that happens.

But Hey, Republicans great job!!!

You spent 1 Trillion Dollars, destroyed Iraq, gave us more terrorists than ever in the history of humanity, put our troops in a quagmire from hell, empowered Iran, and made Osama'dreams come true.....

Only to put America in the position of hearing "good news" now, about the mess YOU STARTED.

The only good news I want to hear, is that you are gone back to the hole Republicans.

[gil]

seekeronos.

"Better to have loyalty to a cause that accassionally errs the (GOP)"

No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power. I take it you are an American first, and a Republican second correct? Then act the part.

Bush is an abject failure of a leader. I'll say that if he was a Democrat, Libertarian, or a Martian. Stupidity has no borders, no colors, and most certainly no party affiliation.

[rwilymz]

"Altough our troops might reach retirement age before that happens."

Draft. Simple solution. Make national service compulsory.

"...destroyed Iraq"

Just wait until the Democrats take office! They want to do to Sudan what the Republicans did to Iraq! ...and also what the Democrats did to Serbia, not to put too fine a point on it.

And I'll stay employed either way!

Yeehah!

"...gave us more terrorists than ever in the history of humanity"

No matter what we do, we're getting "more terrorists than ever in the history of..." because that's simply the world we live in.

"...put our troops in a quagmire from hell"

Define this "quagmire". Please. I mean, if it's not too much trouble, or whatever. I wouldn't want to make your head explode while attempting to construct the grand equivocations most people rely on, but, y'know, if you have time to advertise your credulity for me, I'd appreciate it.

"...empowered Iran"

By doing what?

"...made Osama'dreams come true....."

Oh? He was dereaming of becoming a forced hermit and dying early from effective privation?

Cool.

"Only to put America in the position of hearing ...about the mess YOU STARTED."

Right. We started 1,400 years of panislamist hooey.

Um, dingleberries? Exactly how many Wayback Machines do you folks actually think you have?

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/10/iraqi_troops_free_tr.php

Sorry to inject more good war news into the liberal maw, but duty calls.

[rwilymz]

"Bush is an abject failure of a leader."

By what terms?

Because he did/is doing things you don't want him to do?

That does not equal "failure". That only equals "at odds with you." The fact that he is also at odds with huge numbers of like-minded individuals whose sense of self-importance overshadows legal/constitutional propriety means, frankly, less than nothing.

Who cares what you *think*. If you don't like him or what he does, vote for someone else. Vote twice if local law allows it -- and local law in many commonly Democratic areas of the country do allow it, even if accidentally.

But when the voting's over and you lost, suck it up. To do less means you're a poor loser, with the integrity of a Cardinals fan when the Cubs win the division. Such whining and crying and wailing and backbiting and thumbsucking you'd only expect to see in a nursery school.

Good god, folks, grow up.

[seekeronos]

"--- I take it you are an American first, and a Republican second... ---"

That I do. In fact, I even voted for a Democrat congressman in the 2006 because the incumbent was an incredibly inept and corrupt individual. Believe me, it took much internal reservation about contributing my 1/300,000,000th of of a shred of congressional (R) representation and influence this amounts to on my part, or perhaps a 1/20,000,000th of a shred of state representation that this amounts, to yield a formerly Republican seat to a Democrat (actually, he's not all that bad, as I can see eyes-to-eyes with his platform on environmental and energy issues).

I assuaged myself by voting (R) on all the other folks on the ticket, who all otherwise seemed to be rather competent civil servants and not abounding in as much rampant political scumbaggery as their (D) competition.

"--- No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power. ---"

I see no problem with that. And generally, (in my opinion) the GOP has a better track record of competence - especially in the matters of foreign policy - than the Democrats do.

They lack somewhat (again, my opinion) in social and economic issues for my liking... but I'm afraid that the Dems would do far worse damage with catering to the particular constituencies they cater to vs. those of the Repubs.

[Fred Beloit]

rwily destroyed the "incompetence" claim very effectively above. But the warts of the left can only repeat the same old stuff whether there is truth behind it or not. Pretty sad.

"No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power" writes gil. And to reinforce the impression that he is a jivea-s punk, he adds this:
"Only to put America in the position of hearing "good news" now, about the mess YOU STARTED."

oouuww, " you started"in in big letters. But who does this second-person explosion include? Why Hillery Clinton and the big majority of Democratics who voted to support
the war, not once but several times.

This is how it went down in the Senate:

S.AMDT.4856 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Passed Providing cloture for a resolution authorizing the president to use military force in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against Iraq. (more info at full article)
S.AMDT.4862 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Requiring the president to receive authorization from the United Nations before using military force in Iraq. (more info at full article)
S.AMDT.4865 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Requiring the existence of an imminent threat prior to U.S. military deployment in Iraq. (more info at full article)
S.AMDT.4868 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Declaring that the authorization to use force in Iraq reasserts Congress's power to declare war. Requiring the president to receive congressional authorization for any military action not related to an imminent threat. (more info at full article)
S.AMDT.4869 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Setting a one-year limit on the congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq. (more info at full article)
H.J.RES.114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Passed Authorizes the president to use military force in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against Iraq. (more info at full article)

More here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Senate_votes_on_the_Iraq_War

[Tom]

Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter.

Posted by: chris

fred beloit wants a king to rule the land. It is very simple - because fred is really simple. No free thinking for Fred. No choices for fred. no options for Fred - just imperial announcements to keep him happy and safe. Fred beloit is exactly what is wrong with America right now: He doesn't like democracy because he has to think. he doesn't like the Constitution because he would have to read it. He doesn't like the Bill of Rights because he cannot count too high. Fred epitomizes the last gasp 25%r's. Fred Beloit is a fool and a chickenhawk using YOUR CHILDREN to fight another illegal invasion.

[Fred Beloit]

Want more? Let's see what Sen Kerry thought:

washingtonpost.com > Politics > Elections > 2004 Election > John Kerry
Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS News Feeds
Top News
John Kerry
What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds
Iraq War, 2002-2003

Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page A08

With few of the misgivings he cited before voting against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Kerry voted in October 2002 to authorize use of force against Iraq, agreeing in effect with President Bush that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed an "unacceptable threat" to the world.

In a speech outlining his reasons, Kerry made no reference to his 1991 vote against war with Iraq but noted that "September 11 changed a lot," requiring "a different response, different thinking and different approaches that we have applied in the past."

(Peter Dejong -- AP)

Free E-mail Newsletters

* Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
* Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
* Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

Although he would not support war for "regime change" alone, "the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" and a justification for use of force, he said.

Democrats, chastened by unfavorable reaction to their 1991 votes against the Persian Gulf War, split 29 to 21 in favor of the second Iraq war, with Kerry once again siding with a majority of them. The Senate vote authorizing use of force against Iraq was thus as lopsided as the earlier Iraq war vote had been close: 77 to 23.

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, moT, there is absolutely nothing illegal about the Iraq war, nothing. Don't you see how badly you discredit everything you say by claiming a war voted by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the courts is "illegal"? Arise from your slumbers sh----ad!

[Fred Beloit]

OUUUwwwwwaaaaahhhhh: "Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter."

Why Mr christamfordmum, your list of the victims of your bigotry grows longer. Rednecks, the bitter, people who live in trailers, people made angry by the mean-spirited buffoonery of the Left, and now, oh no, sweating people. He doesn't care that my trailer surrounded body is sweaty because of global warming, which is very apparent in Florida because it happens every March and doesn't end until about January 1st each year. Hhmm but it doesn't seem to be happening in Antarctica...ever. Odd.

[Robert]

rwilymz,
You are correct sir.
Bush was elected (by the REAL power in this country) to screw the poor, hand the U.S. Treasury to his war profiteering corporate masters, start wars to support corporate interests (Cheney's energy meeting with oil execs, anyone?), fool the american people into believing he was fighting for their freedom, use the courts to remove the rights of the people and provide free passes to corporate wrong-doers, and basically bring the working class of this country to it's knees.
Incompetent? I think not.

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and come back and then tell me how incompetent W is.

[Fred Beloit]

Robert, you sly rascal and low-down bounder. Hahaha. You had me going for a second there. What a super impression of a leftwing nut, you fox you. Great. Here is something similar to repay you for the favor of your wit:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/how_to_get_the_world_to_like_u.php

[gil]

rwiylmz.

Here some of the answers to your questions:

"What the Democrats did to Serbia". Serbia is in peace now,along with the Balkans. Not a single American soldier was lost, and if that the way the Democrats will trun Iraq into then by all means do so!!! By the way, you do know recent events historic FACTS do you??? Reason I ask is because you sound like you don't understand what went on in the Balkans.

By what terms is Bush an abject failure of a leader?? You are still asking!!!! OH I don't know, lets see if we go into a war with a nation that had no WMD's at all, had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack, and mismanaged every aspect of the subsecuent occupation I guess you would call that a failure of Leadership maibe????

Or it's getting a blow job in the oval office the only thing that qualifies as "failure of leadership" in your book??? Hey, at leasr no one got killed with Monika's "gift" to Clinton.... On the other hand tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, millions have been displaced, Iran HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY OUR IRAN INVASION, etc, etc.

Please pal, do research the subject a bit more before you comment. It will help all of us in a discusion. I should not have to explain to you why Bush is a failure...... A five year old knows the reasons by now.

[gil]

rwilmyz.

"When the voting is over and you lost suck it up. To do less means you're a poor looser"

You observation that Bush was elected and therefore we should just take his incompetence, is kind of dumb if I might say so.

Tell me pal, do you take Democrat incompetence in silence??? If we elect Hillary President will you just march on no matter what she does, and "suck it up"???

The answer is no, so please stop your hypocrisy.

You are right in that elections give the winners the right to make desicions. That's why Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and according to every poll will loose the White House and even more sits in Congress in 2008.

So when the Democrats are back in full control do apply your "suck it up logic" on yourself OK???? We are in a Democracy to "suck up" the winner according to you.

You most be confusing us with Guatemala.

[gil]

seekeronos.

Since you say that the Republicans have a better level of competence than Democrats in foreign policy can you pleasee explain to me where do you find the competence in Republicans supporting a President that started a war on WMD's but found none, declared that the war was going to last for five months, and we are still there 6 years after, appointed Donald Rumsfeld to conduct the "reconstruction" of Iraq.... And we all know where that ended up, stated that the war was going to be paid with Iraq's oil, and was going to cost us 50 billion Dollars.... We have spent 800 billion and counting, etc, etc.

That's what you call a better foreign policy record??? Can you please explain to me whay???

ANy foreign relation agreement you can point out to me that the Bush Administration has accomplished????? I am all ears, please tell me why you are so sold in this incredibly competent people !!!

Or please be honest with me, and just admit you are a partisan Republican and let's stop the charade will you? I was not born yesterday you know.