Now he goes and calls General Petraeus a liar!
BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he
is here in town. [...] [President Bush] said that General Petraeus is
going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is
progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you
believe him when [General Petraeus] says that?REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.
Here is the Video:
[youtube QV4DIURvbwY]
McQ smacks him hard. Maybe Petraeus is a liar, though he has generally been recognized as a straight shooter willing to criticize the administration, but I don’t know the man. The question I have, is if Petraeus is a liar, how would Reid know? Is he in any position to know?
Maybe we should ask some of his constituents who would have some insight:
“We’re not losing this war.”
That’s how a Las Vegas Army Reserve sergeant and Iraq war veteran who is heading out again for Operation Iraqi Freedom reacted Friday to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s assessment that the war in Iraq is “lost.”
“I don’t believe the war is lost,” Sgt. George Turkovich, 24, said as he stood with other soldiers near a shipping container that had been packed for their deployment to Kuwait.
[...]
“Unfortunately, politics has taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of engagement,” said Turkovich, a 2001 Palo Verde High School graduate. “This is a guerrilla war that we’re fighting, and they’re going to tie our hands.
“So it does make it a lot harder for us to fight the enemy, but we’re not losing this war,” he said.
For the most part, the 50-plus soldiers from a detachment of the Army Reserve’s 314th Combat Service Support Battalion expressed similar views about Reid’s war-is-lost comments this week. They respectfully disagreed with the Democrat.
All volunteers, they were upbeat and excited about the deployment. Some said they were nervous and were trying not to dwell on leaving their families for a year.
[...]
In the eyes of Turkovich, who served as an infantryman with the 82nd Airborne Division for seven months each in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mission is nearing completion but is not over yet.
“Our mission statement when we first went into Iraq was to get Saddam out of power and stand up a new government and a new army,” Turkovich said.
“We’ve gone in there. Saddam is now out of power, and we’ve stood up a new army and we’ve stood up a new government,” he said. “Now we’re just kind of the crutch, nursing it along for right now, and hopefully they’ll be able to get off those training wheels soon and they’ll be able to stand for themselves.”
The 314th’s stateside commander, Lt. Col. Steven Cox, said the political controversy swirling around the war “does weigh upon us because the representatives are supposed to represent American sentiments.”
“I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the American people would leave their military dangling in the wind the way the good senator is doing,” Cox said.
“Defeatism … from our elected officials does not serve us well in the field,” he said. “They embolden the enemy, and they actually leave them with the feeling that they can defeat us and win this.
“All they have to do is wait us out because the American resolve is waning,” he said.
In response the Senator had an underling respond:
“He understands the sacrifices they make and the effects felt by their families when they are called to serve overseas,” Summers said.
“That is why he believes we owe it to them to give them all the resources they need and provide them with a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifices,” he wrote. “Military generals, the American public, and a bipartisan majority of Congress all agree that to stay the course of the president’s failed strategy fails our troops and will not lead to success in Iraq.”
Well, to quote the officer above, he says you are undermining their mission and emboldening the enemy, he says you are leaving the “military dangling in the wind.”
How about the opinion of a soldier in Anbar Senator Reid?
All,
I just wanted to let you know what is happening where I am in Iraq. I don’t want to say this is in response to Harry Reid, but his comments the other day are not in line with what we’re seeing.
We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don’t know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA’s and IP’s in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus’ strategy is just getting started and we’re seeing huge gains here.
However, you don’t see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn’t bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.
This war can be won. We just need the time to get the IA and IP operating on their own. Gen Petraeus is treating the war like a counter-insurgency rather than a stability operation. For non-military personnel, there is a HUGE difference between the two. What we’ve been doing in Iraq since Petraeus took over is completely different than what we were doing under Gen Casey. However, you don’t hear the press or the democrats say that. Most of them are too committed to saying we’ve lost to further their own political agendas that they cannot acknowledge we’re doing something totally different and it is working.
I don’t think the honesty problem has anything to do with Petraeus or the soldiers Senator Reid.
Or as the White House points out, Senator Reid is “confused.” How delicate:
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “By ordering his troop surge,” the President “ignored the advice of the Iraq Study Group.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- Iraq Study Group Report: “We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.” (“The Iraq Study Group Report,” 2006)
- Iraq Study Group Co-Chair James A. Baker, III: “Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.” (James A. Baker, III, Op-Ed, “A Path to Common Ground,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)
Did the Senator read the ISG report? I don’t think so. he just knew it was critical and decided what that criticism should have meant rather than what it says. I think the Senator has been studying Glenn Greenwald.
Sen. Reid: “The first thing that needs to be done is a regional conference.” “Have, as the Iraq Study Group said, have the United States meet with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and, yes, Iran, to sit down and see what we can do to resolve the issues that are so ugly in Iraq.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- A regional conference is scheduled for early May: “Ministers from Iraq’s neighboring countries, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and industrialized nations will hold a meeting in Egypt early next month to discuss the situation in Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Saturday. … Ministers from Iraq’s neighbors as well as Bahrain and Egypt, and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, will hold a meeting in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik on May 3-4, Zebari said. … Also in attendance, Zebari said, will be officials from the so-called Group of Eight industrialized nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.” (“Ministers From 20 Countries To Meet In Egypt Over Iraq Next Month,” The Associated Press, 4/7/07)
Does the man even read the newspaper?
Sen. Reid: “General Petraeus has said the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
- Of the President’s FY 2007 supplemental request, the Senate cut $243 million in critical programs that would help the Iraqis meet important political and economic benchmarks. The Senate added $120 million to the President’s request, of which $70 million is for refugees and internally displaced persons and $50 million is for a specific USAID program, leaving a net cut from the President’s request of $243 million.
- The $243 million in net Senate cuts included:
- $70 million to build the governing capacity of local governments.
- $50 million to help the Iraqis draft and implement key legislative and legal reforms.
- 50 million to support rule of law programs so Iraqis can better govern themselves.
- $43 million to promote democracy and civil society efforts.
- $40 million to build the governing capacity of the national government.
- $10 million for private sector development.
- $100 million to support our diplomatic mission and civilian presence, including $41 million for supporting the doubling the PRTs.
- President Bush: “We fully recognize that there has to be political progress and economic progress, along with military progress, in order for that government to succeed.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks, East Grand Rapids, MI, 4/20/07)
Obviously the political solution Senator Reid meant was back here in the US, because he is undermining all the tools for political success. Obviously the economic solution he was concerned about was in lining their own pocketbooks as it turns out the Democrats are raking in the funding now that they have power and pork is swelling. More dissonance:
Sen. Reid today: “We don’t have meetings with the President, not real substantive meetings, he holds carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks On Iraq, Washington, DC, 4/23/07)
-
- Sen. Reid immediately following last Wednesday’s meeting: “Well, we had an hour-long meeting with the President. It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq – the conversation was with the war in Iraq, that’s basically all it was, with a few variations, but mainly that. … [P]eople gave their opinions, they gave their considered opinion what was going wrong and right with the war in Iraq. And I think we have too little of that. I think it was extremely important the President hear from us. And he heard from us in detail. And I think he needs to hear more of conversations from people like us – who don’t always tell him what he wants to hear. I think we told him things today that he needed to hear.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
- Speaker Pelosi on the meeting: “I think the conversation that we had is the basis for future conversations on this. But each side was very clear with its position that that doesn’t mean that that’s the end of the conversation. And that is what is known as a negotiation and government, that it’s not just one meeting.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
- Sen. Reid immediately following last Wednesday’s meeting: “Well, we had an hour-long meeting with the President. It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq – the conversation was with the war in Iraq, that’s basically all it was, with a few variations, but mainly that. … [P]eople gave their opinions, they gave their considered opinion what was going wrong and right with the war in Iraq. And I think we have too little of that. I think it was extremely important the President hear from us. And he heard from us in detail. And I think he needs to hear more of conversations from people like us – who don’t always tell him what he wants to hear. I think we told him things today that he needed to hear.” (Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Remarks After Meeting With The President, Washington, DC, 4/18/07)
I think he needs to write down what he has done in his appointment book. Confused?
UPDATE: Captain Ed takes on a few other nonsensical statements from Reid. Here are a few of the false or misleading statements I didn’t specifically address, but Ed does:
General Petraeus Says The War Is A “Lost Causeâ€
General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution
General Petraeus Does Not Support the Surge
General Petraeus Does Not Need Immediate Funding (okay, I have addressed this elsewhere extensively, but not here, and in the comments some deny it has had an effect.)
Go read Captain Ed take apart Reid bit by bit.
[tags] Senator Reid, Military, Iraq, funding, General Petraeus [/tags]
Is it possible you are misreading this particular response? It sounds to me like Reid is saying he won’t believe what BUSH is saying about this (Bush being the original subject of the previous sentence.)
Of course, Reid is at best disingenuous when he mangles Petraeus’s words then claims to agree with him that “the war cannot be one militarily”. But let’s assume he’s convinced himself that he’s properly representing what the general said –and he certainly seems to be going out of his way to show his ‘support’ for Petraeus’s position. In that case, I cannot see why he would, in the next breath, call Petraeus a liar. So I have to take “I don’t believe him” as referring to Bush‘s claims. And isn’t his declaring that he will not believe Bush, no matter what disgusting enough?
If you were correct in that reading then it could only mean that Reid doesn’t believe that Gen. Petraeus is actually coming to the Hill. Reading the entire thing in context, however, it is clear that Reid is emphatically denying that there is progress in Iraq or that the surge is working, the message that Petraeus will apparently deliver.
Not really since he’s not made a concerted effort to show how he supports Pres. Bush as he has done with Gen. Petraeus.
So, you are thinking that he doesn’t believe Bush when he says Petraeus is coming to report on progress? I guess it is possible, though unlikely given his many other statements. You are assuming that Reid is being intellectually consistent and believing that supporting Petraeus should mean that he is not saying Petraeus is misrepresenting things. However, reading all that I have above, plus the many contradictory things he has said I am using Occam’s razor.
We will see after he meets with Petraeus what comes out. My guess is we will get a variation of one (or, who knows, both) of two answers. He will claim to have listened carefully to what Petraeus said, shower him with praise, and claim somehow it agrees with his own assessment. Something along the lines of how he mangles Petraeus in the way you already note and as he does with the Iraq Study Group. It won’t make any sense, but he’ll say it with conviction. I think he actually believes it, which is why he so pathetic.
Or, he will claim that Petraeus is flat out wrong while lavishing him with praise. He won’t call him a liar, that will just be the implication as it is here.
I think it will be #1, which would keep your interpretation in play. As you said, it really doesn’t matter. The more I think about it though, given the way he has handled it, doing both is almost as likely.
If you read the CNN transcript, it’s clear that Reid is calling Bush a liar, not Petraeus. Here is the questioner’s follow up to Reid:
It’s not a close call.
Moreover, even if Reid was referring to Petraeus, how does it make Reid a liar? After all, disagreeing with an opinion can’t really make one a liar. If your opinion is that the Mona Lisa is a great painting, and I think it sucks, does that make me a liar? Hardly.
Look, Reid was expressing merely what many, many people outside the right-wing bubble agree with, namely, that the “war” in Iraq cannot be “won.” Indeed, it’s a rather conservative position. The idea that America cannot force sides in an schism dating back some 1400 years to play nice with each other is hardly a radical idea.
If you really support the troops, bring ‘em home.
It shows he has called Bush a liar and said he was in a state of denial minutes before, which he did.
In the part of the transcript above I maintain he is saying that if Petraeus says what Bush says he is saying, he won’t believe him because he believes it isn’t happening. He is saying that he thinks Petraeus is a liar (without using the word) or worse, delusional.
There is no doubt he is calling Bush a liar, I certainly wouldn’t dispute that.
So, you are saying that if Petraeus says he believe progress is being made that Senator Reid owes Bush an apology, because then Bush would not have lied? You are saying the “him” above refers to Bush.
I expect you back here if Petraeus does say things along the lines of what the President says and demand Reid make an apology. I don’t buy for a second that is what Reid meant, but I am willing for you to make the demand anyway. In fact, I’ll put up a great big post with your demand. On one interpretation (do you really think Reid thinks Bush is lying about what Petraeus is saying? Really?) I’ll take him to task for questioning Petraeus’ veracity, but I’ll also give your alternate theory, and the demand for Reid to apologize, just as much space. Either way it was a pathetic response to Bash’s question.
I didn’t say it did. Other things might make him a liar, but I never claimed this statement did.
As for the rest, I disagree, but then I am not a conservative.
Actually three things make it pretty clear that Reid is talking about comments to come from Petraeus:
(1) The entire question pertains to Petraeus, not, as you suggest, to Pres. Bush.
(2) “He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?” Bash is speaking in the future tense, i.e. when Petraeus comes to the Hill. Bush’s comments on what Petraeus will testify are statements in the past to which the proper question is not “will you believe him” but “do you you believe him.”
(3) Reid’s complete response to the question attempts to explain why he won’t (note future tense) believe that “there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working” which is the testimony that Petraeus will supposedly be giving, not Bush.
If you really support the troops why don’t you try listening to them instead of treating them like immature imbeciles who don’t know what’s best for them. Does this guy sound like he agrees with you?
Since the surge began, Diyala province has become much more violent. So too Basra. And tensions are rising in Kirkuk, especially between the PKK (a terrorist organization) and Turkey.
In the two months since the surge began, both civilian deaths and American military deaths have risen 10 percent.
Even more scary is the nature of yesterday’s attack in Baquba. 9 dead paratroopers? The attack was both sophisticated, and preyed on the vunerable position our troops are now put in, sitting as they do in their “outposts.”
Is the surge working? Who knows. If you ask some supporters of the surge, they would say that an increase in violence is evidence the surge is working. And then they would probably also say that the same thing if the violence were decreasing.
Until, however, you disarm the Shia militias, this is all a dog and pony show. And there has been absolutely no effort on that front.
More to the point, the purpose of the surge is to create enough security to allow for reconcilliation between the Shia and the Sunnis. But that assumes the Shia leadership wants reconciliation. But they don’t. Maliki doesn’t. SCIRI doesn’t. And Sadr certainly doesn’t.
It’s a waste of American lives. Plain and simple.
So I guess that means you won’t believe Petraeus either?
I am not doubting that, though that would be a deterioration from earlier, but could you give a cite for that?
True, whci is why such simple metrics are irrelevant.
That is just false. Its sufficiency may be in question, but not that there has been no effort. If you don’t believe me I will cite that.
Anyway, it may end up a waste, though neither you or I can know that. It changes nothing about my criticism of Reid.
Michael,
I agree that to make the case for Reid’s comments about Petraeus calls for assuming things about mangled tenses and pronouns. I have given the idea creedence because Reid is quite capable of getting such things messed up. I agree with Bruce above, it is bad either way.
Ok, I will. From NPR this morning:
Now, the soldier you quote is talking about Ramadi. Great. Things may be going better there for now. But look at Diyala. Things are going much worse there.
From the Washington Post:
So things are getting better in Ramadi, but worse in Diyala. And yet the soldier you quote makes no mention of Diyala, because it is not convenient for him to do so. Nor does he mention Basra, where intra-Shia violence is increasing, especially over the last two weeks, as British troops are withdrawing.
If you or Lance want to cherry pick a few choice quotes from selected soldiers, go ahead. Meanwhile, the rest of us will deal with the big picture.
If Basra is not secure, the whole Iraqi enterprise will go down the tubes. Yet there is no surge there; to the contrary, the British are leaving. Likewise, the more troops that flow into Diyala means fewer troops somewhere else. And that’s where the Sunni insurgents will go next.
Bush cannot “win” this war.
Caldwell’s briefing of 4/11/07
Yeah, I heard that too. He has every right to his opinion, but I sure do wish that NPR would air the views of soldiers who do support the war and want to win the mission in which they’re involved. I read about a lot of them because I know where to look. I have not once heard such an opinion expressed on NPR, and I listen to it everyday.
If you want to know what they are thinking on the ground, try searching them out a little. I expect to hear grumbling and dissent from some of the troops, but can you handle the opinion of those who don’t want to see their efforts wasted? You could try looking here for starters, and Green Beret (inactive) Michael Yon will give you the straight skinny whether it’s pretty or not.
The soldier doesn’t make mention of Diyala because that’s not where he’s based. He can only report on what he knows. Too bad “reporters” holed up in Baghdad don’t take the same advice. As for Diyala being so bad, that not what CENTCOM is reporting:
The point is that we could back and forth on this with you providing bad news and casualties and me linking good news and enemy kills/captures, and we will still be in the same place. The question is, do you want to win the war or not? And don’t tell me “We can’t win it”; I want to know if you want to win it.
As for myself, not only do I want to win, I am extremely confident we can if we give our troops the support and encouragement that they need. Having the Senate Majority Leader stand up and declare that “the war is lost” is giant slap in the face to our troops, and the constant caterwauling from the MSM and those on the left he definitely do not want the US to win, only serve to make our job harder. Gen. Petraeus is, of course, correct that the war will not be won solely by military means (and so is Harry Reid to the extent that he says the same), which is exactly why it so important that we give our guys a chance to settle things down so that Iraqis can continue to train and take over their own country.
Left unsaid by Petraeus et al. is that it also takes will to win, and that has been sorely lacking here in the States.
It wouldn’t hurt to listen to the Iraqi troops either:
Look, you asked me to listen to those on the ground. I quickly found one who is there who opposes the war and who, apparently, is not alone. You have found some who do.
So listening to the troops on the grounds proves your point and proves my point.
So it proves nothing. Or everything. But it certainly isn’t definitive. So can we finally move on from this canard that if there are troops who want to stay there, that proves Reid is wrong?
Exactly.
And the problem is, as I identified above, there are many places where violence is going on where we have no troops at all. (E.g., Basra.)
Sure I want to win it.
But most telling is what you don’t want to hear. You don’t want to hear that we can’t. And that is the problem. It’s Bush’s problem too. This is not simply a matter of wills.
Let’s say I really wanted to defeat the Germans at Dunkirk in 1940. Would it have been wise for me to stay? No. Despite my will to win, it would have been foolish to stay, because I would have been killed. Likewise, those in Pickett’s Charge surely had the will to win. And yet Pickett’s Charge was a mistake. A big mistake.
And when you say you don’t want to hear we can’t win, that is more telling than anything. And it is a classic rhetorical trick. It’s cheap. By accusing those who counsel against staying at Dunkirk of lacking the will to win, you get to avoid the question of whether it would be smart to stay.
So I answered your question. I want to win. Now you answer mine. Explain how the Shia and Sunni are going to reconcile.
Again, you are missing the big picture here. Let’s say the Sunnis unite and quit fighting the Americans. Let’s say for one moment they stop killling Americans altoghether. So what? It doesn’t mean an end to the civil war. Again, you are missing the big picture. As long as Sunni wants to kill Shia, and vice versa, it doesn’t matter how much each side cooperates with the Americans.
And at this point, there is no chance for reconciliation. The Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade are never going to disarm. Sadr will never share power with the Sunnis. Neither will SCIRI. And they run the government. The run the domestic security forces. And let’s not even get into the Kurds.
Explain how the Sunni and Shia are going to reconcile. The surge is not going to work. But let’s assume it does. How, then, do you convince each side to play nice with the other.
We couldn’t do it in the Balkans. Why can we do it here?
Okay, since we agree Reid is pathetic, the question you now are focused on is can we win it. Of course I get the requisite, you are not looking at the big picture, but I think I am.
First, we may not “win” it. Many things are undertaken and are worthwhile even if it never results in a “win.” The relevant question is which course is the best. To determine that there are numerous variables to look at. The effect upon our own forces, the economic cost, the cost to Iraqi’s of various courses of action, tactical and strategic goals, etc. I assure you I have looked quite carefully at those. The most one sided of those questions is the fate of Iraqi’s. The others are far more debateable. Of course, for many people the fate of the Iraqi’s themselves, especially Kurds, seems to be beside the point. Such a calculation used to be a very conservative way of looking at things, it now seems to be the mantra of the left as well.
Interestingly, on the strategic and tactical concerns, that noted “all that matters are our interests” realist Scowcroft backs the President now, which must gall him. I see that part pretty much like Scowcroft, and he doesn’t expect a “win” either. He does think we can make a difference in what happens afterward, and he thinks the tactical and strategic risks of a premature withdrawal outweigh the advantages. He seems to have lost his status as the realist to quote lately. I have from the beginning weighed things pretty similarly to Scowcroft, and always respected him, but I just weighed what was and is important differently than he. I am no cold realist.
Can we win? Only fools say things like you can’t win, just like over confident hawks who couldn’t imagine that it would be as difficult as it has become have had to learn a bit of humility. Many (such as Andrew Sullivan and Greg Djerejian) have become filled with rage at Bush. “His incompetence is the reason!” Maybe, but they should never have supported something if outcomes like we have seen were so beyond belief to them.
Yes we can win, will we is another story. One thing we can be sure of, we can’t win if we just go ahead and quit. Most soldiers don’t feel as the man you quoted. When most do I’ll be a lot more concerned.
As for your appeal to whack a mole, of course they will move. of course the violence will continue, and for quite a while. If the surge merely changed the location of the violence (and we will not know any of it for many months) that is a win. Baghdad is far more important than Diyala. If Baghdad and Anbar are vastly improved and Diyala worse, then strategically that is a win. Does it end the deployment? No. Does it move the ball down the field? Yes.
Other metrics are more important than the violence level as well. Is the Iraqi army getting stronger and more capable? The answer to that is yes. Is that army more reliable when it comes to death squads and other elements? Yes. Has that army taken on more and more responsibility? Yes it has.
Of course there will be continued setbacks. Certain areas they take over will backslide and the units disappoint. Others will not. The question isn’t whether there is uniform progress, but whether there is progress? Right now on all the most important metrics there is. If that were to change, and spiral away from us, then maybe I change. Right now that progress is occurring.
So can we win? Of course. If not, can we improve the eventual outcome? I believe so, though that determination depends on how you weigh various factors. If the fate of the Iraqi people is of little importance then anything short of a stable military ally probably doesn’t seem very important.
Can we lose, or see little improvement, just putting off the inevitable? Sure, but that was always true. I think we are halfway to getting a decent outcome. I just don’t think enough people are willing to commit to that. That is a shame. We can go back to invading Grenada and Panama. Real war with actual prospects for failure seems just too much for some people.
The fact is failure can still be better than inaction. Both Korea and Vietnam provided us with significant strategic advantages, even though we “lost” both. They would have provided even more had we not cut off funding for Vietnam after we left. Hopefully we can accomplish at least as much here if we play our cards right. Many professional who critiqued the war now realize that. Unfortunately, and partly due to their influence, the public attitude has soured just when they may need it to do what they think is necessary to carry out an effective policy. Scowcroft should have spent a lot less time playing to people he actually disagreed with. Same with all those generals who were so popular with the anti war movement until we found out they opposed the Bush policy (including, by the way Petraeus) but think withdrawal is a bad idea as well. Bad politics and bad strategy.
First of all those were battles, not the war. More importantly, you cannot possibly compare Iraq to Dunkirk. We also came back and re-invaded. It is a silly comparison. Michael shouldn’t want to hear we can’t win, as should have Churchill. He notably, at a point far darker than now, decided it was winnable. If we are looking at Dunkirk I am sure Michael will certainly not want to hear it then either, and I would hope you wouldn’t as well. He will however realize withdrawal is a good idea.
Dont have enough time for anything other than a snark…
said the Buffalo Bills, Jan. 1993.
But the Bills and Frank Reich thought they still had a chance. Marv Levy gave them that chance, and they won. from 25 points down.
The point being, if the players feel they have the opportunity to win, they can either lose or win. but if you insist that they cant, then the loss in on your shoulders.
Any general (or anybody else for that matter) who works for Bush stays on message or loses his job. Casey and Abazaid touted the administration line for years, “more troops would be detrimental, Iraqis must take the lead, we’re standing them up so we can stand down”.
They were dutifully mimicking the party line right up to the election in November. Once the Iraq Study Group said that strategy was a failure Bush spent from November to January looking for any other way forward no matter how brainless to keep from admitting failure and have his daddy’s friends bail him out again. He hit on Kagan and Keane’s surge plan. Casey and Abazaid couldn’t have credibly implemented it after years of parroting just the opposite. They had to go and in came Petraeus and Admiral Fallon.
These small unit and neighborhood watch tactics have been tried before. In Vietnam they were called “strategic hamlet” and “pacification” programs. They were short-term fixes that had little impact on the outcome.
Most Iraqis want a timetable for our withdrawal. The ISG wants a timetable for withdrawal (3/08). The majority of the American people, the US military and the US Congress wants a timetable. George Bush, most of the Republican party and their 30% deadender supporters do not. You can only pretend this is working for so long.
Yes they did. Where counter insurgency tactics were tried they were very successful and the Vietcong by the time of our withdrawal was devastated. It was a conventional invasion after we left, and after we cut off aid that did the S. Vietnamese in. The tactics were also effective in Algeria and many other places.
Actually it seems most Iraqi’s want us to stay until things are better. They do want us to withdraw. I am not pretending it is working, I am saying we see signs of progress. Neither you nor I know if it will work.
Notice the ISG and the men behind it back what he is doing now. They may be wrong, but both Reid and you shouldn’t be claiming the ISG backs what he is asking. The ISG specifically ruled out set time lines and James Baker has made it clear what was meant. The war may be lost and Iraq destined no matter what we do to collapse into a brutal civil war, but that doesn’t change what I wrote about Reid’s misrepresentations one bit.
Tell it to the people of Ho Chi Minh City.
Well no, the Vietcong was devastated by the Tet Offensive in 1968. And yet the ARVN never did stand up so we could stand down. Even though we trained them for years, left them billions in munitions, and the third biggest air force in the world. Not many like fighting for a corrupt puppet government.
It was a not so conventional invasion during most of the war supported by a large majority of the local populace.
Nope. Take off the rose colored glasses. Algeria won it’s indepencence form France in 1962. French opinion turned against the war because of torture. Sound familiar?
Judging by Petraeus’s own counter insurgency manual we don’t have a chance of calming things down to give the government breathing space. Maliki is so weak he can’t decide whether he supports walling off Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad let alone enact and enforce the benchmarks he needs to mollify the Sunnis. The Shiites won’t let him.
You are just wrong. TET did devastate them, but when we left the government was able to stand on its own. It won the first time the North invaded, they lost only when we cut off aid. They ran out of ammunition, fuel and other critical supplies while the North got all it needed from its allies. The Vietcong were a non factor.
Which has nothing to do with whether the tactics you disparage were effective or not. The were very effective once they were employed and form the basis of most counterinsurgency doctrine to this day. The French lost for many reasons, that wasn’t why. The torture issue did loom large, though to compare us to the French is pretty ridiculous. The head of the counterinsurgency was opposed to the torture, they were not part of his strategy. The tactics used by the French have been studied in military circles for decades because of how effective they were. They are not studying them because of their lack of success. Much can be learned from defeat, and if we had paid more attention to those lessons earlier, as Petraeus has advocated, we might be much further along. The defeat of the French reinforced the effectiveness of the counterinsurgency tactics and damaged the case for the French’s earlier course and their brutality.
Possibly. Glad to know you are so sure of that. I live in a more uncertain world, and as a student of history believe such confidence is rarely warranted. I wish the Bush administration had shown more humility from the start about what would happen, I see no reason to feel comfortable with that kind of certainty of failure either.
The S. Vietnamese fell like a house of cards when attacked. It simply did not have the support of the people. The proof was in that pudding too.
It was always a longshot we’d be able to invade, occupy and successfully help usher Iraq into a market based economy and democratic government. That effort was crippled when Rummy and Wolfowitz, drunk on power, gutted Powell’s Future of Iraq project and DoD took away the Phase IV of the operation from State a few weeks before the invasion with absolutely no idea what they were doing. It was dealt the fatal blow at Abu Ghraib in April 2004. This war has been lost for years. All that’s left is the finger pointing here at home and the dancing in the streets over there. Iraqis are probably hoping we leave on a nice spring or fall day so their new indepedence day holdiay will be amenable for oudoor celebrations for centuries to come.
Yeah like not questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. That would go for you and Michelle Malkin the cheerleader too. You’re supposed to divide your enemies not your friends if you expect to conquer. George Bush is the best friend
Al Qaeda recruiters have ever had and the worst president the US has ever had.
Lance as for humility here’s something for you to think about that Atrios wrote today:
Laura Bush doesn’t get it either.
No it didn’t. It was hard fought, but they crushed the first invasion attempt. They fell afterward because they ran out of ammunition, air support, etc. They didn’t have enough of that because the N. Vietnamese had all the support from their allies they needed. Without that support the North could not have won either. Support of the people pales in comparison to war material in a conventional fight, and that was a conventional fight. I’ll give you the story of what happened to change things (I love that somehow you believe the N. Vietnamese did have the support of the people) from the Democratic Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb:
Then in early 1975 the Watergate Congress dealt non-Communist Indochina the final blow. The new Congress icily resisted President Gerald Ford’s January request for additional military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. This appropriation would have provided the beleaguered Cambodian and South Vietnamese militaries with ammunition, spare parts, and tactical weapons needed to continue their own defense. Despite the fact that the 1973 Paris Peace Accords called specifically for “unlimited military replacement aid” for South Vietnam, by March the House Democratic Caucus voted overwhelmingly, 189-49, against any additional military assistance to Vietnam or Cambodia.
[...]
On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew—the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany—and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.
As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: “I had no ammunition.” “I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day.” “I had nothing to give my soldiers.” “I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help.”
That is the reality. No amount of the support of the people (and a great many people, the large majority did support the government or the counterinsurgency wouldn’t have worked against the Viet Cong) would have stopped the North Vietnamese tanks. A people who were in revolt wouldn’t have needed N. Vietnamese tanks to throw off their government. When they fled for their lives they were not thinking how glad they were the S. Vietnamese government fell. It also has no bearing on whether the counterinsurgency tactics were effective or not. It is a red herring.
Uh, Atrios lied in that piece. I covered it in another post. You can vent on that there.
You obviously know nothing about me to in any way think that accusation applies to me. You are just slinging mud now. I never questioned your patriotism, or war opponents in general. I have questioned some people’s patriotism, but I know many patriots who opposed the war. Funny, a lot of them now support staying, such as Scowcroft. I never questioned his patriotism though. I haven’t even questioned Reid’s. I called his arguments pathetic and misleading, which they are. I can’t speak for Malkin, I almost never read her.
Now you’re going to have to back that up or you are just gonna look like an ignorant ass. Since I’ve not seen any administration official question anyone’s patriotism (I’ve only democrats question people’s patriotism ironically enough) and I know Lance hasn’t, I’m going to have to guess that much like Donny, you are out of your element here.
So we should have just gone on propping up an unpopular corrupt government in a proxy war for how many more years? You do know in 1956 the UN held an election in Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh won overwhelmingly. Like it or not he was the George Washington of their country. The Vietnamese fought for their independence for decades against the Japanese, French and then us. Afterward they did not ramage thru Indochina, the domino theory was BS. As a matter of fact they invaded Cambodia and drove out the murderous Khmer Rouge and then left.
If the S. Vietnamese despised their Northern brothers so much why was there no insurgency against the N. Vietnamese? Why was there no uprising?
Lance quotes that soldier accusing Reid of treason. I assume he agrees with him. And parse it all you want, these words “you are undermining their mission and emboldening the enemy, he says you are leaving the “military dangling in the wind” are accusing him of treason. As for the administration, look at anything Dick Cheney says these days.
Nuff said.
I can quote people for reasons other than agreeing with everything they say. I do it all the time with liberals and leftists for example. Of course you seem to have a problem with context. The point was that many people on the ground and in the command structure disagree with him that there is no progress. It may all come to naught, but they say it is there. Reid has no basis to just say that Petraeus isn’t being straight. Wrong on the implications maybe, but not about whether there are signs of progress.
Further, I went and checked, no mention of treason.
Uh, Reid said he believes in giving them all the necessary support. Yet the officer in question says he is not. Now, the officer is in fact correct, but it doesn’t matter, it was a quote in response to Reid not my own opinion. None of that is an accusation of treason. If you think cutting critical funds for their mission is treason that is on you, not me or that officer. I think it is stupid, and Reid has misled people about the fact that he is doing that, but I would never use the word treason for it.
You continuing to make things up about what I say or believe is getting irritating.
As for Dick Cheney, please find something besides your assertion where he says all who disagree with him are traitors. It may exist, but please demonstrate it.
The officer is in fact incorrect, but that doesn’t matter to you. The Iraq supplemental has $124 billion in it, $4 billion more for the military than Bush requested. The supplemental changes nothing about rules of engagement like Sgt. George Turkovich claims. If he doesn’t like the rules of engagement our military is supposed to abide by he shouldn’t be representing our military in Iraq or anywhere else. We don’t need any more Charles Graners or Steven Dale Greens.
You can play all the word games you want Lance. The fact of the matter is you’re willing to thousands more Americans and Iraqis get maimed and/or die. For nothing. Iraq may or may not have some semblence of democracy. It may not survive intact. It isn’t going to be a US ally. It will be an Iranian ally.
You want an open ended committment from our military and our wallets to do the impossible. You want to win political victories here at home and in Iraq using the military. You and your party has had 4 years to win those victories using bombs and bullets over there and fear and smear over here. It’s counter productive. The more you bomb and the more you smear the less support you have.
No, Reid and Pelosi have delayed sending a supplemental up for a vote and send it to the President. That is a fact and critical programs are on hold because of that. No word game, that is a fact. I have documented that here, as have many others elsewhere.
Nor does it justify the unsubstantiated assertions about my views, or the history of counter insurgency, or the collapse of Vietnam. Nor does it address the pathetic cluelessness of Reid in the piece above. You are the one playing wordgames, trying to put words in my mouth that I have never uttered, and claiming things were said in the post that were uttered by nobody, even in quotes.
In the short run that may be a consequence for American soldiers. For Iraqi’s I expect far more will die if we leave. That is what I am trying to avoid, and it may fail. I have never denied otherwise. You are the one claiming all kinds of certainty about the world you cannot in any way justify. It is vanity. Claim I am wrong and I’ll discuss it, but your smears and insinuations of other motives only prove you know nothing of my views, and your own have more to do with bile than any weighing of the facts and implications of them.
Come back and discuss this when you have something other to say than unsupported claims followed by changing the subject so you can hurl some other charge or claim. Whether the Iraq war is a good or bad idea for us to continue to be involved in doesn’t change the truth of the post.
Total bullshit, whether it comes out of your butt, the DoD or the WH. I haven’t bothered reading all your screeds, only been here a week, but I doubt you were screeching when the Repubs didn’t bother passing one appropriation bill last year forcing the Dems to spend the first month of this session doing the work they didn’t get done. In any case Bush didn’t complete his Iraq Supplemental Funding Request until March 9 this year. The House passed their version of the bill on March 23. The Senate on March 29. The House passed the conference bill today. The Senate will pass it by the end of the week. The president will have it on his desk by this Friday April 27.
Last year on February 16, Bush submitted his 2006 supplemental appropriations request. The conference bill didn’t come out of the Republican controlled congress til June 15.
In 2005 Bush submitted his request on February 14. The conference bill didn’t come out of the Repub congress until May 10.
Tell me you were oh so irritated about critical programs being on hold the last two springs. Republican talking points don’t fool anybody but the most gullible these days.
Another Repubican talking point. The fact is every year we’ve been there the war has gotten worse. The last 3 months have been the costliest for US forces. The Iraqi government won’t even release their civilian death toll for last month. There is no breathing room being created. We’re just leaving US soldiers exposed at forward outposts which is making it more dangerous for them and the locals in the area. There’s somewhere between 250,000 and a million tonnes of munitions in caches and dumps all around Iraq. The DoD estimated years ago there was enough for another dozen to 18 years of insurgent warfare.
In reality neither you or anybody else has any idea what will happen after we leave. Polls say Iraqis don’t want to split up into 3 nations. As even wingnuts admit the Sunni insurgency is rejecting Al Qaeda. Both Sunni and Sadrists say Iraqis should only attack occupiers not Iraqis. During the marine attack on Fallujah in April 2004 Sadr’s people sent humanitarian aid to the predominantly Sunni city. Once the Iraqi government has to deal with a hard deadline they’ll make the deals they need with each other. If they don’t they’ll fall. But that’s for them to sort out. We didn’t have the French hanging around 5 years after they enabled us to throw off British rule. We can’t solve Iraq’s civil war for them. Hell Bush won’t even talk to Syria or Iran. We’re not doing anything but providing targets for their weapons and ire as it is. And Bush is perfectly happy with that as long as the disaster can be passed on to the next president.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you under the impression I am a Republican? That I voted for Bush or some other pattern that might make me not criticize Republicans? Ignorant reply again. What a scintillating retort.
Which could have been done weeks ago, but they chose not to do it, and had the gall to claim it didn’t matter because the military had plenty of funding. Except that wasn’t true. Now the bill will be vetoed and they will have to delay it all until later. If they had voted when McConnell asked them to, had Pelosi appointed conferees, etc. this would already be pretty much done. Now we are weeks away.
What past funding bills timing has to do with this funding bill you will have to explain, however:
Taking points or not, they are true. Programs are being cut and put on hold that support the mission. Search the archives, I have it all documented and weeks ago when they could have passed the initial bill, got the veto over with and gotten down to brass tacks. They decided not to despite strong pleas from the Republican leadership and the White House to appoint conferees and send the bill on.
As for the rest, some of it you argued against earlier in this thread. You are now incoherent.
No, it is my opinion, unlike above which was fact. You can claim I am wrong, but I disagree, and given your tentative grasp of almost everything we have discussed I am pretty much going to leave it at that. You are beginning to sputter. Not much to debate, you abandon each issue and wander around. Nobody learns anything and when we get down to any details you just change the subject again. None of it has any bearing on the things we were discussing earlier or the post. You think the war should end. Fine, I get that. It doesn’t excuse Reid, mean I called anyone a traitor, or support your account of the Vietnam war or counterinsurgency tactics.
I will say that even most who want withdrawal don’t believe it will be better for Iraqi’s. They may be wrong and you may be right, but it has nothing to do with talking points. If the Republicans are saying something I agree with I do. When they don’t I don’t. I certainly don’t waste my time defending people like Reid, Atrios, Trent Lott or Ann Coulter because they are on “my” side whatever that side may be at the time. You do. Who is following talking points?
.
As far as I’ve seen you’ve done nothing but repeat Republican talking points no matter how silly. When called on it you start to hedge, dodge responsibility for your words and claim I’m changing the subject. Lance you’re the one who brought up the silly Republican point that military efforts will come crashing to a halt unless the supplemental is passed soon. Your irresponsibility, fantasies about “winning”, revisonist history on Vietnam have deadend Republican written all over it.
I guess you need it cited for you. There is no imminent funding crisis if the war supplemental isn’t railroaded through as Republicans and you would like. According to the non-partisan budget experts at the Congressional Research Service the DoD can carry on all functions related to the war well into July with what they already have.
Your argument that we should listen to the troops is irrelevent because 24 year old soldiers don’t make policy, they implement it on the ground.
But if you insist then google the Military Times poll from last December. The US military has turned against the war just as the American people have.
But regardless of opinion polls the fact is the surge isn’t working any better than it did iin Vietnam. Escalation just escalates the violence. We can’t possibly kill or bend to our will the vast numbers of Iraqis by force of arms who want us to leave.
Putting US troops in smaller units at forward operating bases in Iraqi towns and neighborhoods makes them much more tempting targets. It’s a good strategy for policing and peacekeeping. It’s a terrible strategy in a multi opponent insurgent war zone in a nation crazed by violence, who blame us for their misery with a propensity for family and tribal vengeance/honor killing. Everybody likes having a local police station and cops walking the beat. Nobody wants a police station full of heavily armed foreign kids with itchy trigger fingers who don’t even speak the language.
You and your conservative friends are stuck supporting a policy that is killing the US Army, destroying our standing in the world and bankrupting us. As a Democrat I say keep it up. That’s fine by me. There’s nothing that will wreck the corrupt Republican party faster than going down with Bush’s ship. But our country needs a different plan. Here’s something I wrote back in January. Take a look. You’ll probably find it repulsive but it may at least get you thinking out of the box you’re locked in.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/19/133610/922
Who’s spouting talking points? Lance has hedged nothing and presented facts and opinions, clearly labeled as such since you see to be having a difficult time figuring what is what.
As for historical revisionism, you were still blathering on about how
in spite of the proof to the contrary, presented ably by Lance, and without comprehending the contradiction in your analysis: if the “people” didn’t support S. Vietnam, then why was an invasion necessary? And, as for this:
Do you not recall that approximately 1.6 Million people were rounded up and “re-educated”, sometimes to their deaths, by the NV? Did it escape your memory that Communist Vietnam was not exactly a place that suffered dissent, much less allowed an insurgency to develop. Once we cut off all funding, where exactly would the insurgency have obtained the means to resist?
But, let me guess, you will bristle with righteous indignation at being referred to as defeatist.
No one said they couldn’t. The problem is that the military will essentially be consuming itself in the process. SECDEF Gates laid this out quite precisely in his letter to Sen. Byrd:
But that’s just one big “talking point”, eh?
No that is a Democratic talking point.
I dealt with that a long time ago, and no, the CRS report does not mean what you think it does, though think progress sought to frame it in such a way as to confuse the casual reader. Please, come at me with something new.
More importantly that argument is now over, as the expected cuts have occurred. So you can say that it won’t result in programs being effected all you want, but they already have, so your arguments are pointless and silly at this point.
To catch you up to speed read all the posts below since you obviously have spent no time learning what those who disagreed with that assessment were arguing at the time, though as mentioned, the cuts have occurred and I document them in the link below. Then come at me with arguments I haven’t already dealt with.
The Republicans and I are on the same page here, if they are talking points they are the truth. When they are not on the same page we won’t be. Get it? That way I am not sitting around defending people when they are spouting factually incorrect talking points like you are. I can slag at the Republicans when appropriate. Since you haven’t been here long let me clue you in. Michael Wade and I actively argued against returning the Republicans to power in congress. I am not sure about the others, but I am pretty sure Joshua at minimum refused to vote for them.
I just agree with them on this issue. Anyway, I am not going to bother arguing with you on this unless you have some idea of why I believe it is wrong. Since you pulled out the CRS I guess that means you have no knowledge of the other side of the issue, as opposed to me, who was waiting for you to pull it out because I make it a point to know why other people might disagree. Quite often they have a point.
If you want to argue after reading that the cuts and reshuffling of money isn’t an issue you have to address that argument, not act as if something that is already happening isn’t going to happen. You’ll need proof that the military is hiding money somewhere and purposefully doing this to make Bush look good or something. If that is the case, you better have evidence.
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=680
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=745
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=747
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=800
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=844
Oh well, you beat me to it Michael.
We are conservatives now Michael! I guess all those fire breathing LGF’ers who called us Dhimmis will be disappointed to have to associate with us. Support Petraeus and argue for an honest appraisal of the military budget and you are practically Karl Rove’s partner in the pew.
You’d think a conservative could at least spell sean hannity’s name right. Back to Vast Right Wing Conspiracy re-education classes for you Lance!
Why was an invasion necessary from the USA to South Vietnam? The North and South were both Vietnamese.
Where there’s a will there’s a way isn’t there? By 1976 when Hanoi and the Chinese were at odds over Cambodia and by 1979 when they were actively fighting each other across their border a South Vietnemese insurgency could have gotten arms from the Chinese. But after decades of war there was no will to fight in South Vietnam in 1975. If you took a poll in Vietnam today and asked them if they wanted to go on fighting for an independent South Vietnam they’d give you a resounding no. And then tell you what a wonderful capitalist opportunity Vietnam is for investors today.
The military has been consuming itself in the process for the last 4 years. Even as we spend unsustainable amounts on this war. You’d think even with over a $500 billion dollar budget and hundreds of billions in supplementals for the war already that Gates is running the DoD, the single biggest agency in the US government on a shoe string, hand to mouth on a daily basis by that letter. He’d better learn to budget his expenditures a lot better than Rummy ever did every quickly. Regardless the Senate just passed the supplemental 51-46. The president can sign the bill today and the miltiary will have more than Bush asked for to fund his war.
Lance you may not think you’re a conservative or a Republican. But don’t kid yourself. If you support the policy then you are. Not recognizing that is delusional.
But what if he supports democratic or liberal policy too, is he then a democrat? Does that mean he’s both according to you?
So you admit your democratic talking point was wrong? Or have you just shifted your argument to a contradictory one and hoping no one will notice the rhetorical slight of hand.
ChrisB you’re not making any sense. But from what I’ve seen you rarely do.
Whatever you say Donny
Chris you do realize you’re emulating John Goodman’s character who acted as if he was Jewish and a Vietnam vet when he was neither. In other words a complete phony. I find that hilarious.
Actually he was nominally Jewish, and he definitely was a Vietnam Vet, although IIRC there was doubt cast as to whether he saw combat.
You should be glad he didn’t emulate “Da Jesus” …
Man, if I am a Republican they are in worse trouble than I thought. Given I haven’t voted for a Republican since………I can’t remember. I might have voted for Reagan in 1984, but I don’t think so. I have had the chance to vote for Bush in every election he has run, including for governor of Texas, and somehow avoided it. I asked people to not vote for Republicans in the last election. Damn, if I am representative of the Republicans then they must be guilty of voter fraud. Other wise they would have no votes.
I may violate that this fall however, and possibly vote for my first state or national level Republican. Bobby Jindal for Governor. At that point I guess I might as well declare myself an ally of Pat Robertson I’ll be such a solid base member. I mean, I will have actually voted for a Republican for a major office. Now they need only fraudulently get a few million more and he is in like Flynn. I’ll go get all my gay friends and see if Jimmy Swaggart can save them. My next interview won’t be with Norm Geras, it’ll be Ann Coulter or D’nesh D’souza. I’ll need to erase my old posts about Ann, I wouldn’t want her to take offense.
What a partisan, close minded person you are mark.
Well, let me explain it to you. If your last comment is what you believe now, it accepts that Reid, Murtha and Pelosi were wrong, and that the military is making cuts, and that the CRS was not saying what Think Progress and other blogs were claiming it was. Now your argument is that the military needs to tighten their belts. Fine, they are. It will affect the mission in numerous ways, as the posts I referenced demonstrate conclusively.
Now, you are coming dangerously close to claiming it is all BS and that they are making these changes just to give the President cover. Who knows? It may be true. But before you take that next step you better come with evidence more convincing than they are a bunch of cold hearted criminals. Just like I didn’t take anybody’s word on the CRS and read it myself. If it had shown that there wasn’t an issue, I would have called them on it as quickly as I called Reid and Murtha, because as far as I am concerned the timing is unimportant, it can be anytime. Unfortunately it is an issue.
In fact, if it avoided all this nonsense I wish they didn’t have to vote at all. Unfortunately the CRS shows this is an issue. My contacts in the military say it is a big issue (especially for the logistics guys, and I know some) and numerous figures in the military and other branches of government have said so and the effects are already being felt. So whether you support the war or not Reid is wrong, Think progress was wrong, and you were wrong to swallow their BS. If you want to say you don’t care, because being opposed to the war justifies their tactics and misrepresentations, that is another argument. This post is about his misrepresentations, not the cause they serve. My view on that is plainly stated.
Except it will be vetoed. Now they will have to get one that is veto proof put together and it will take a bit more time. It won’t make up for what has already been delayed or put off. They could have sent it up immediately as the Republicans asked and it could have been on his desk weeks ago. Thus we could have had the veto proof bill passed by now and we could all go on our merry way whatever the makeup of that bill might be.
Instead they want to play games to try and force him to veto it when it will cause a problem. Bad enough in my book, but maybe justifiable to you if it makes him look bad or possibly forces him to sign the bill into law. Well bully for you if you think so. My issue here is they don’t want to admit that is what they are doing so they are lying, misleading, whatever you want to call it so that voters think it isn’t an issue when it most certainly is. You are parroting that lie rather than just admitting what Steny Hoyer admitted, the delay is purely a political tactic. Defend that if you want, but don’t claim I am the one using talking points when you are mouthing provably false ones and I am mouthing provably correct ones.
What is the purpose of occupying a Islamic country indefinately, against the wishes of
the majority of it’s people? What are the chances of that succeeding vs. the chances it’ll only inspire more Arab kids to become terrorists?
Isn’t one of the prerequisites for winning the larger war against radical Islamist terrorists is that Arabs and Islamic people must confront the nutjobs? Then let’s get the hell out and let them do it. The foreign Arab fighters in Iraq are despised by everybody over there because they kill everybody indiscriminately over there. Let the
Shia, Kurds and Sunni tribes that are sick of having their markets blown up by suicidal whackjobs have at them. They know a Saudi or a Egyptiian accent when they hear one. It’s much easier for them to root them out of their towns and cities. It won’t be much of a fight (there aren’t many foreign fighters in Iraq) and might be overshadowed by sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing but it will be a Iraqi victory over radical Islamists. And isn’t getting peopel Islamic faith to reject radical Islamist terrorism what this is all about?
I disagree mark, but what does this have to do with everything we have been discussing. The veracity of Reid’s statements, the effectiveness historically of counterinsurgency, specifically Vietnam and Algeria, etc. That you think the war is a bad idea is established. That I think you are wrong about the outcome should we leave has been established. Can you stick to a just a few topics where we are in dispute and they are not just opinions based on so many variables that we can say anything. Let us narrow the field a bit. Let us keep it to the post and the first off topic discussions we had.
Affect the mission. Affect.
Man, if I had a nickel…
Once again Chris, I have no idea what you are talking about:^]
Lance you make as little sense as Chris though I must say I like Cohen Bros movies as much as the next guy. If you haven’t seen it, rent “Blood Simple” their first. Excellent murder/thriller.
You think I’m a close minded partisan and yet you don’t consider any Iraq policy valid other than the policy of the worst president this country has ever seen. The president who has been wrong about everything in this godforsaken war he started. You’re such a Democrat you call the Senate majority leader pathetic for opposing the war policy of again, the worst president this country has ever seen. On the single biggest issue of this decade which will have negative repercussions for our country for decades to come, you accept without question a letter from Bush’s handpicked SecDef who has a vested interest in getting the DoD all the cash he can over the non partisan CRS. Between the two I’m inclined to believe the guys who aren’t looking for a flood of taxpayer money out of the deal. I’ve never even seen the Think Progress post you speak of. Your posts don’t prove anything conclusively. You have supposed military people making claims on taxpayer money. It’s not like the military has ever lied about anything before. Ask Rummy.
Hey why not make that president you don’t support, you know the worst president this country has ever seen, king! That way he won’t have to deal with all that pesky oversight by the Democratic congress and those Republicans you don’t support won’t have to go on record siding with the yet again, worst president this country has ever seen.
Reid and Pelosi aren’t trying to force him to veto the bill. They are trying to get him to sign a sensible bill that’s supported by the American and Iraqi people. If he vetoes it he will deny our troops the strategy and support they need. That would all be on George Bush, the worst president this country has ever seen.
What you mean is Bush could have his funding with no accountability and no deadline.
Time isn’t on Bush’s side in any way shape or form. He has to actually negotiate with Democrats, be a uniter instead of divider (another of his original campaign lies) to get the funding he wants. But more importantly the surge is crippling the military much faster. They were hardpressed to keep up the old rotations. It’s disgusting that Bush announced that delaying the supplemental would cause him to extend deployments. The next day Gates announced extended deployments, prematurely he said, after someone in the Pentagon leaked that it was going to be the policy all along. Despicable. Talk about playing games.
To keep this war from spreading to the rest of the region Bush has to negotiate with ALL Iraq’s neighbors including Syria and Iran. The longer he waits the less leverage he has from our increasingly crippled Army. The Army that was barely hanging on last year that’s now falling apart faster because of the surge and the strain of this occupation. And that means negotiate, not send some John Bolton wannabe to glare across the table at them, spew insults and threats, or recite a pointless litany of their faults to them.