All FUBAR in Iraq

Newsweek shows how things are getting worse:

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August--the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting--a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

We're losing the country, one town at a time.

It wasn't long ago that Steve Gilliard and I mapped out the obvious insurgency strategy -- melt away in the face of superior US firepower during the US invasion. While US officials and the warbloggers gloated that entire Iraqi units were disappearing without a fight, we knew that it wasn't the good news they thought it was -- these Iraqis were bidding their time. They would fight on their terms, not ours.

Not that we didn't have a window of opportunity to set things right, and to prove that we were a benevolent force. But the electricity never came back on consistently. Abu Ghraib happened. We were responsible for too much "collateral damage". We blew the Fallujah uprising, both by going in too quickly, and then by withdrawing too quickly (hence handing the insurgents a morale-boosting battlefield victory). And the insurgency bid its time.

Now, we're relegating to such Orwellian absurdities as calling insurgents "terrorists" and "anti-Iraqi forces" as we take heavy incoming and experience an ever-growing death toll and fatalities rate.

We've talked about Vietnam enough. It's settled -- Kerry was a hero, Bush shirked his duty and went AWOL. Great. Let's move on.

A point that should be heeded by the Kerry campaign:

For U.S. troops in Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought to walk away from Iraq. Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane suggestion. But there's widespread agreement that Washington needs to rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose."

No rational person thought there would be "a reprieve after sovereignty", given that Iraq doesn't have true sovereignty. But whatever, the war is worsening.

Force Bush to defend his "war presidency". He's got nothing to brag about.

•  yes, and who better!

  to understand the strategy to get us out of a quagmire than a Vietnam vet who experienced and then SPOKE OUT against that quagmire.  "Who wants to be the last to die..."

  by pitbullEmily on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Kerry is a good choice.

    Probably the best we could find right now.  I supported Dean, but as I've said before, I recognize that this is not the time for a learning curve.  Kerry can do this job, and will appoint a great cabinet, decent judges, and man, do I want Teresa Kerry in the White House.

    I keep wishing that we were more organized as a team. There are so many great stories to pursue to expose the Bush Team.  I wish that I could simply assign each story to the right team leaders.  You know?  There is a place for pursuing the TANG stuff, because a lot of ordinary people still don't really know that the truth of the matter is as simple as it is-  Bush was AWOL, Kerry was a hero, Iraq is all f-d up.

    Plame investigation:  Josh Marshall
    AWOL:  Al Franken
    Iraq & Afhghanistan mess:   Kos Team
    Economy: Paul Krugman, Atrios, Billmon
    Social instability and shades of Orwell:  Tom Tomorrow, JC Christian.
    Medicare & Health Care:  Howard Dean
    Talking to Folks:  Bill Clinton,  John Edwards

    by kate mckinnon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:31:24 PM PDT

    •  Get Elected First

      I think Kerry will pull it out, but on this point, Kerry is relatively crippled, politically speaking, on this issue.

      I have no doubt that he'd do better than Bush and be less likely to get us into these FUBAR situations in the first place, but -- sad as it is, the Sheeple aren't content to boot (in)Curious George for this collossal fuck up. And Kerry hasn't done himself any favors for even permitting that debate from occurring -- i.e. he has advocated for the "I'd have gone in anyway even w/o WsMD" position, which completely eviscerates the "I was duped" into voting for this war position.

      The sheeple want to elect the person with the better plan.  And, unfortunately, the best "plan" right now is not to do "great things" but to "avoid bad things."  But (again unfortunately), "things would be less fucked up" isn't exactly the grist of great stump speeches and is emphatically NOT the stuff that lets the talking heads speak of your great "vision" or distinction in terms of your "plan" that is different than the guy currently in charge.

      Kerry ceded the upper hand when he gave up the debate on who would better be able to avoid collossal fuck ups in the first place by saying what he did. Now, he's fighting on nuance.  Once in a position to lead, that's his forte.  But its awfully difficult to campaign on nuance -- especially against your foe's peceived strength.

      by MRL on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

      •  LAST ONE I PROMISE

        I apologize ahead of time for OT but I am besides myself. I promise this will be the last bitch of the day:

        From Time:
        "A long time ago last week, the vice president of the United States said that if John Kerry is elected President "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists. It was an outrageous statement, which exposed the rampaging hubris of the Republican Party these days--and it should have been a big story. But the Cheney flap disappeared within 24 hours, in a week that exploded a month's worth of political bombshells. A new book by the professional sensationalist Kitty Kelley accused George Bush of using cocaine at Camp David when his father was President. CBS News revealed documents that indicated Bush had disobeyed orders, avoided service and received "sugar-coated" treatment when his performance was evaluated in the National Guard. And then, within hours, both stories were knocked down--a source for the cocaine story recanted, and some conservative bloggers charged the documents were forgeries. By week's end, the mudslinging had been successfully muddled: the controversy was now about the stories, not the President." .........

        " Democrats were perplexed, depressed and awestruck. How could Cheney get away with saying, in effect, that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism? More to the point, how could Bush get away with, well, everything: a misspent youth, a lifetime of insider trading on the family name, a misfought war, a misleading inference that the invasion of Iraq had some vague relevance to 9/11, a presidency marked by rampant corporate cronyism at home and abroad? "If we can't beat this guy, with this record ..." a prominent Democrat said to me. He was unable to finish the sentence. "

        http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,695809,00.html
        

        by Kalki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:59:54 PM PDT

        •  Deja vu all over again

          
          "If we can't beat this guy, with this record ..." a prominent Democrat said to me. He was unable to finish the sentence.
          

          Well, technically, Gore beat Bush in 2000, save for the un-Constitutional intercession of five of the Supremes, but the same thought had occurred to me then.

          Bush ran on his Texas record, including running on such dubious assertions as a state "Patients' Bill of Rights" that he had actually first opposed, and then allowed to go into law without his gubernatorial signature. He claimed that his "voluntary restraint" on emissions had cleaned up Texas air, when every environmental survey showed that was a baldfaced lie.

          And yet "with this record", as the unnamed Democrat in Klein's piece says, the GL ticket was unable to convincingly put Bush away in the first round. It shouldn't have ever gotten anywhere near the Supreme Court in the first place.

          Why? Because Democrats played softball. Because they didn't actually make any serious attempt to attack and impeach and undermine the Bush record. Go back and look at the 2000 debate transcripts. It's the same wet-noodle, low-speed, Nerf rhetoric which the KE campaign is weakly emitting this season.

          Here's anothe example: at the federal level, NCLB is based largely on the alleged "reforms" which Bush instituted in Texas.

          What's happened since the election in 2000 is that the Texas claims of improvement have been shown to be another outright lie, the result of TX school administrators gaming the system: allowing low performers to leave and then claiming that they had obtained degrees via other channels such as the GED.

          That should have been easily demonstrable in 2000 with even rudimentary oppo research. And it could have sunk the Bush boat with one well-placed shot below the waterline. Why the eff not? Because Democrats are losers.

          Let me repeat that: because Democrats are losers. Good losers, gentlemanly losers, ladylike losers, civilized and polite and friendly losers. Losers.

          The Democratic party once had a spine. It once had the ability and the will to carry the fight to its political enemies. It once didn't shirk from making direct forceful accusations against its opponents. It wasn't afraid to make its adversaries confront their own records. And when the party's nominees were slandered, it came right back at the accusers with powerful refutations.

          I don't think the party has that any longer. And that's most visible at the top of the ticket. This unnamed Democrat in the Klein piece is by no means the only person inside the party who is unhappy. Prominent powerhouses like Ed Rendell are criticizing the Kerry campaign for its slowness to respond and its unwillingness to confront.

          I'm pissed. I'm not a Democrat, but in a de facto two-party system, this dysfunctional and disorganized party is my only hope of a vehicle to unseat the rogues now in power. I and other independent crossover voters like me may just be wasting our time.

          by marquer on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:40:42 PM PDT

          •  Back on topic

            What I had to say wandered from the original topic of the chaos in Iraq. Let me bring it sharply back into focus.

            Go and read this first.

            Let me boil that down to a few stump speech sentences for you:

            "George Bush wanted to make it look like Iraq is stabilizing. He wanted to make it look like the US can leave soon. So they enlisted local Iraqis and gave them radios and vehicles and equipment. But many of those Iraqis were actually insurgents. They went straight over to the other side. And now today, American soldiers are being killed in the street by weapons that were given to our enemies by George Bush's order."

            Did you hear John Kerry say anything like that on the campaign trail?

            Can you even imagine for one second hearing Kerry say anything like that on the campaign trail?

            No. Absolutely not. Instead, you will hear soft bureaucratic nonconfrontational blather. As Meteor Blades posted the other day, Kerry's idea of an attack is to say that the Administration should "immediately release the findings of the Scowcroft Report... should allow the American people to see the recommendations of the Scowcroft Commission..."

            Blah blah, commissions, recommendations, droning boring policy wonk heaven.

            Is your pulse quickening with that kind of rhetoric? Does it sharpen your readiness to fight and win?

            by marquer on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

        •  Comment from Greying Cold War Liberal

          Kerry and Edwards did not take this lying down.  Edwards hit back, and I say bravo!  Edwards quite rightly accused Cheney of "crossing the line" and going beyond Bush-Cheney's usual "scare tactics."   Indeed, he accused Cheney of essentially saying that a vote for Kerry-Edwards was a vote for Bin Laden.  The Democratic counterattack forced Cheney to lamely back off and claim that he did not mean what he clearly meant, which was that a vote for Kerry-Edwards would guarantee further devastating terrorist attacks on the U.S.

          Edwards simply did not go far enough in counterattacking.  He should have slugged Cheney until he was black and blue.  Edwards should have accused Cheny of out-and-out McCarthyism.  Furthermore, if Kerry-Edwards did not have the guts to do it, MoveOnPAC or the Media Fund should have immediately cut an ad juxtaposing photos of Cheney and Joe McCarthy.  Indeed, Bush claims that Reagan is his idol, but the spiritual forces guiding this Bush-Cheney Administration are the ghosts of Tail-Gunner Joe McCarthy and the ghoulish master of smear, slime and innuendo, Dick Nixon.  Before we know it Cheney and Bush will be returning us to the days of the Red Scare and Black Lists.

          by hmjsj on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:11:01 PM PDT

          •  Good to hear from you

            Any longtime Cold War liberal is welcome around here; it's good to have people like you as a reminder that things have been equally tough at times in the past.

            
            Edwards simply did not go far enough in counterattacking.  He should have slugged Cheney until he was black and blue.  Edwards should have accused Cheny of out-and-out McCarthyism.
            

            Yes!

            And Sunshine Johnny has the rhetorical skills to really drive a point home when he wants to. He's normally so upbeat that he can hardly be accused of being a fulltime attack dog.

            What I am dying to hear is for either he or for Kerry to take that Cheney quote about us "being hit again" and outright say, "America was already hit once, on 9/11. We weren't in charge. Bush and Cheney were supposed to be. It happened on their watch. They were responsible. They failed. We will not fail."

            And perhaps the best attack concept of all is this: it's not about 9/11.

            It's about 8/11.

            Where was George Bush on 8/11? Was George Bush on duty in the White House on 8/11? Was he making a determined effort to protect America on 8/11?

            No. On 8/11, Bush was on vacation on the ranch. And five days before that, when Bush got a clear warning in the President's Daily Brief(holding up a copy of the PDB), that said right at the top of the page, quote, "bin Laden determined to attack in US", Bush did nothing.

            That warning said specifically, quote, "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings", and again Bush did nothing.

            That's the kind of tough speechifying that I am wanting to hear. Am I alone in that?

            by marquer on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:48:53 PM PDT

          •  Would this be a flip-flop....

            on Cheney's part???  He was nailed by Edwards, the press (both the print and electronic media) and was forced to 'clarify' his original comments: FLIP-FLOP.  Remember the rules, when BC change their minds, its a 'clarification', when KE changes their minds its a FLIP-FLOP; damn I hate the SCLM!!!!!  Also - when can the bar be raised for Shrub???  

            Why is it he can get away with 'mispeaking' (no press conferences, will only answer questions if they are given to him ahead of time, only 'performs' for friendly crowds, etc...) the man has been President for almost 4 (incredibly long and painful) years now - give me a friggin' break!!!  And the press excuses it!!!  But, if KE does it - watch out - they're confused, in disarray - again, I hate the SCLM!!!

            by slmsavoy88 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

        •  You are on topic

          In many ways you articulate the central issue in the campaign.  Can American democracy survive?  It cannot survive if there are no effective electoral controls on incompetence at the level demonstrated by the present administration; it cannot survive in the absence of the most primitive vetting of candidates for major office; it cannot survive when patent disasters are not punished by electoral defeat.

          The signs are not good.  Schwarzenegger's election shows that experience is not required for major office; our present experience indicatres that utter failure does not necessarily bring political defeat.

          One of the reasons why we are working so hard to defeat Bush is that we have to demonstrate that democracy can work.  This goes beyond specific policies; the more sensible Republicans ought to be with us on this.  We are looking at something worse than a train wreck.  We have to do what we can to stop it.

          by Knut Wicksell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:55:26 PM PDT

      •  And of the future?

        If Iraq and the "war on turrrrr" were connected then Kerry (and the media )should be asking the american public whether they want to continue fighting the war on terror they way this administration is conducting the war in Iraq.

        It doesn't matter that their plans now aren't very different: Kerry wants an international force and Bush wants to train the Iraqis quickly; the point is that more troops is the only answer. Just because the solutions to FUBAR are similar doesn't mean that FUBAR was inevitable.

        In the future, which is what we're voting on, a global problem like terrorism requires a global strategy. Without it we get Iraq. Is this Bush's global strategy for fighting terrorism?

        by moses on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

  •  "war president"

    Doing this type of attack is the best thing to do.

    As Karl Rove said:

    "The American people already know the weaknesses. In order to define you position, you must attack the strength of your opponent."

    Just look at how Kerry is getting mauled by getting his strengths attacked. Kerry needs to attack bush's strength. And that strength is predicated by this so-called war presidency.
    

    by krwada on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:54:44 PM PDT

    •  Agreement from This Old Cold War Liberal

      Kerry-Edwards should not dodge the debate over the War on Terror and the War in Iraq by trying to switch the subject to domestic policy, although they should be hitting the Administration on domestic policy as well. I am hoping that Kerry will now jump fully into the debate over foreign policy.  

      I agree with this FUBAR article and the "You Broke it You Bought it Article" above.  Kerry is quite right in saying that the War in Iraq was based on false premises and bad/slanted intelligence.  (I would add that it was also based on outright lies.) Kerry is also quite correct in saying that by getting bogged down in Iraq that the Bush Adminstration has dangerously limited its options in the War against al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan (still a main theatre in the War on Terror), Russia with all its loose Nukes, and elsewhere.

      I think, however, that Kerry-Edwards should be more vigorously critiquing Bush policy and actions in all these places.  Kerry and Edwards should have attacked Bush for allowing Sunni radicals, Jihadists and Baathists to turn the Sunni Triangle into a safe haven.  They should have attacked Bush for allowing al-Sadr to escape encirclement and destruction in Najaf.  When Bush and Cheney point out that they voted against the $87 billion, they should remind voters that Bush-Cheney were the ones who sent troops into Iraq without body armor, sufficient numbers of tanks and armored fighting vehicles and no strategy to defeat an insurgency or rebuild Iraq in the first place.  Since the allies probably won't come forward and help us if Kerry wins, Kerry and Edwards should say how they would change military strategy and tactics on the ground in Iraq if the allies do not come to our aid. Kerry must do more than attack Bush on Iraq.  He must show that he is prepared to take charge as Commander in Chief.      

      As a start, Kerry-Edwards should highlight the covert intervention of Iran in southern Iraq in Shiite areas and the mobilization of Iranian troops along the border for ostensible maneuvers.  They should make it clear that they are ready to meet any military action by Iran by force and take meaningful action to aid reformists in that theocratic society.  No, I am not talking about an invasion.  Kerry-Edwards must make it clear that they will embrace more sophisticated counterinsurgency doctrine in Iraq itself, while endeavoring to shore up Baghdad and seeking an acceptable exit strategic that will secure U.S. strategic interests to the degree possible.  Kerry and Edwards must make it clear that they are willing to pursue options in North Korea other than just diplomatic discussions.  They must acknowledge that Kim Jong-Il duped Clinton and Albright and that they are not going to fall into the same diplomatic traps.  Indeed, the U.S. National Security Establishment must prepare itself for the eventuality of a nuclear North Korea.  Finally, Kerry-Edwards must make it clear that they have the will to finish the job militarily in Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda once and for all, and defeat the warlords threatening the nascent democratic government in embattled Kabul.  

      Yes, by all means, Kerry-Edwards must attack Bush-Cheney's supposed strengths.   They should show that the Bush Administration has overseen a disastrous foreign policy and that they are strong enough to fix the mess.  Hopefully, Bush-Cheney will not be around to clean up the mess they made.  I certainly hope that this job falls to Kerry-Edwards.  Yes, of course, we must do all this in consultation with our allies, employing aggressive diplomacy.    

      by hmjsj on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:44:14 PM PDT

      •  Why aren't you workiing for the campaign

        This is great advice.  I hope somebody from K-E is reading it.

        by Knut Wicksell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:58:45 PM PDT

•  Let's NOT Move On

  "We've talked about Vietnam enough. It's settled -- Kerry was a hero, Bush shirked his duty and went AWOL. Great. Let's move on."

  We've got to use TANG to soften up Bush.  Many uninformed swing voters don't fully understand how Bush was a child of privilege who used family connections to avoid combat.  And then didn't even fufill the obligations of the Guard.

  Making this clear through repetition helps show American voters Bush's true character, and makes everything he says less credible.

  The Kerry campaign can't fully make this clear.  Only we can by contributing to Texans for Truth.

  Uninformed Americans think Bush is a steadfast regular guy.  They should be given a wake-up call.

  by NoDissentAllowed on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:37 PM PDT

  •  Actually

    I think this is a mistake.  Iraq has everything we need, if we can keep the focus on Bush's screwups.  And to do that, IMHO we need to keep overwhelming focus on just that one thing.

    The more we shoot in different directions, the more the Bush campaign can redirect the public attention to things that don't really hit home with them.

    TANG's good, don't get me wrong.  But it isn't a killer.  Where we are in Iraq right now, by contrast, could sink Bush, period.

    by Jonathan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:34:21 PM PDT

    •  Well Said!

      The Reps stay on message. We have so many tempting targets our message gets diffused.

      by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:40:07 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        In a way, it's an enviable position to be in.  Our opponent has screwed up so many things, and is so deeply flawed, that we're constantly in disagreement about what to nail him on.

        by Jonathan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:42:34 PM PDT

      •  Apples to Oranges

        It's not useful to compare Dems to Republicans because we're a political party while they're a quasi corporation.

        They stay on message (singular) because they're issued one message at a time by their virtual board of directors.

        We have so many tempting targets our message gets diffused.

        I'd put it that our problem is that we have so many speakers that our message is diffused. If we were effectively employees like those on the other side, it wouldn't occur to us to go shooting off our mouths when Corporate issues us the official line.

        There's at least one book being hawked on talk shows saying that we need to organize like the Repubs. Ignoring the disturbing question of whether that's a good idea, it's not possible before the election. The question in my mind is how can we as individual citizens and small sized interest groups fight most effectively against the type of organization attacking us.

        My feeling is that as numerous other posters have been saying here in their different ways, we tend to try to fight with tactics better suited to the opposition, and for my money, we tend to think we're still fighting on a battlefield we left behind a generation ago.

        by Gooserock on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:20:13 PM PDT

        •  Distinction between campaign and Party-

          The party had different candidates with varying messages. We had a primary and Kerry won. Now it is up to Kerry  to organize all spokespeople behind the campaign's message. This isn't undemocratic or corporate, it is the essence of democracy. Factions having had their say unite behind the message of the   faction that garnered the most support.

          Why Kerry's campaign isn't orchestrating this better is the a major problem.  

          by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

    •  Agree--focus on Iraq

      Michael Tomasky had a good article today in The Prospect online about how the Reps use the "character" issue.  

      The isue here is Iraq.  Bush took us into a war  based on a lie and did such a poor job of planning and execution that he f*ked it up.  Why rehire the CEO who f*ked up the company?  It is as simple as that.  Kerry has to hit him on his supposed competence as a "war president" and point out that what Bush, either by design or incompetence, is offering us is perpetual war.  NOT a perpetual effort to disable the terror groups who threaten us, but perpetual war against countries of convenience.  It is so hard to understand not because people are stupid, but because they are trusting.  They just can't believe a Pres could be as bad as Bush has been.  They will only believe that when they ALSO believe that Kerry can protect them better;  until then, it isn't safe for them to think the truth about Bush.  

      So Kerry has to sell himself as someone who is decisive and who will fight hard and smart to protect the country by showing us that he can fight hard and smart against Bush.  He has to DO it, he can't just talk about it.

      by Mimikatz on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:19:44 PM PDT

    •  It's so easy to connect the two.

      It's not like we're talking brain surgery here. A sitting president who was too rich to die for his country is sending people off to die for their country.

      They used this against Clinton and it worked.

      Go back and read Bush's statements about catastrophic successes. He makes a case that he's a war president while actually he inadvertently admits he's incompetent. He assumes you win wars with bombs, not soldiers. Only someone who fled war and has no respect for the men/women dying in Iraq would be so callous.

      I firmly believe that Bush's TANG service is intricately related with this screwed up war in Iraq. Why separate the two?

      by upstate NY on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:07:48 PM PDT

  •  Ooops, didn't need that.

    Have fun selling your soul.  I hope you get something nice and shiny for it.  Bush skipped out on his duty, and is a lying scumbag.  Fine.  Let's expose the lies that are killing people every day.

    by fwiffo on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:38:38 PM PDT

    •  Re: Ooops, didn't need that.

      "Have fun selling your soul.  I hope you get something nice and shiny for it.  Bush skipped out on his duty, and is a lying scumbag.  Fine.  Let's expose the lies that are killing people every day."

      No.  Let's win the election and get the lying scumbag out of office so he can't keep killing people.

      That's not selling your soul in my book.  That's called changing the world.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:48:53 PM PDT

      •  But...

        We cannot become the enemy we wish to defeat.

        by Sean Robertson on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:47:55 PM PDT

        •  Fuck that

          The Democrats are always the grateful losers.  Oh, we lost, but we didn't stoop to thier level.  Oh, they have the presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, but at least we took the high road.  Oh, they are ripping up the constitution, but at least we stayed true to our beliefs.  Oh, they are starting wars throughout the globe for abosultely no goddamn reason with no clue as to how to get out of them, but we stayed true to our principals.

          FUCK THAT!

          We need to lie, cheat, steal, exaggerate, call people names, yell, scream, whine, bribe, blackmail, and everything else short of murder, if that's what it takes to win.  If not, we will be the permanent losers.
          

          by Geotpf on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:03:24 PM PDT

        •  Don't Worry

          In the old TV show, the District Attorney was never confused with Perry Mason.

          by kaleidescope on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:24:49 PM PDT

  •  Old Cold War Liberal Agrees

    Yes, Bush and Cheney were cowards and fled military service, despite being super hawks (albeit chicken hawks) even back then during Vietnam.  I think that the Democratic 527s should hold Bush-Cheney accountable "in spades." We know that Kerry went to Vietnam and fought for his country, despite being a child of privilege and deciding later that the war was wrong.  Indeed, the 527s damned well should hold Bush and Cheney accountable for refusing to fight in Vietnam, although they are perfectly willing now to send young men and women to their deaths in Iraq.  I am more than willing to say, despite being a hardliner myself, that Iraq may well become a second Vietnam and even worse. Iraq is both immoral and a strategic blunder.  

    From a tactical political perspective, the National Guard attacks are also serving a purpose even if they do not sway a single swing voter.  The chatter about the National Guard and Bush's Guard record (or lack thereof) are distracting attention from the slimey and shameful swift boat lies and smear tactics.

    by hmjsj on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:56:05 PM PDT

•  Here's the discussion...

  ....it's Clinton's fault (note: see McClellan's response to what's wrong in North Korea).  Lather, rinse, repeat.

  by cls180 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:46 PM PDT

  •  Old Cold War Liberal Comments

    I note the sarcasm and approve.  However, Kerry rightly points out that Bush-Cheney has done nothing to address the crisis in North Korea even as Iraq becomes an inferno of death and destruction, all out guerrilla war, and sanguinary terror.  In fact, the Bush plan for North Korea in more recent times has not been all that different from Clinton's well-meaning but also failed policy.  Thus, what the Hell are Bush and his minions talking about? Moreover, as Kim Jong-Il rattles his nuclear saber, Bush-Cheney are talking about pulling troops out of North Korea.  This sounds like appeasement to me.  Kerry-Edwards should call it appeasement.  They should "call a spade a spade."  However, Kerry-Edwards had also better be prepared to say what they are prepared to do if renewed and vigorous diplomatic talks under a Kerry Administration fail, which well may happen.  

    by hmjsj on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:03:51 PM PDT

•  I keep repeating this because it's still relevant

  Months ago, Dick Morris, the no-loyalties hired gun consultant told Hannity 'If Bush wants to be the war president, he'd better be winning the war'.

  Still true today.

  On a personal note, my co-worker's Marine son is on his way to Iraq soon. His only word for Bush (and his mom's) had 4 letters. Two votes for Kerry in an already blue state. But I was given to believe there's more than one Kerry vote in that unit (but all they really want is to come home... the election ain't what's on their mind).

  by DemFromCT on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:51 PM PDT

  •  Only one problem...

    Only one problem (for the future of the country that is):  what the hell can John Kerry do once elected?    I don't see any possible good solution.  

    I realize Kerry can't play his hand too soon.  But he also needs to give some indication of what he WILL do at some point fairly soon.  

    Maybe during the debates...

    sPh

    by sphealey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:31:42 PM PDT

    •  Well, for one thing...

      Kerry can avoid doing everything wrong that can be done wrong.

      There are no good solutions in Iraq.  But that doesn't mean there aren't better courses of action than others.  And I think we can guarantee, based upon past experience, that whatever is the worst choice, Bush will take it.  Kerry, by contrast, will take the best of a bad set of choices.

      It's a matter of competence.  I want the most competent leadership, and that's especially true when there are no good choices.  I don't think anyone can confuse Bush's leadership in Iraq with competence.  By contrast, Kerry has a record of competence, and has tapped the most competent people for the job.  If there's a good option, he'll take it.

      by Jonathan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:37:44 PM PDT

      •  What Kerry can say about Iraq

        1. I will not become president until January 20. The situation is getting so dramatically worse I can not commit to one particular solution

        2. But having a new president means a fresh start, since the current one's credibility in the world, both Moslem and Western, is zero

        3. And most importantly I would clean house of the advisors who got us into this mess, none of whom has paid a price, none of whom has admitted error, and all of whom would likely keep going this dead end road

        4. I would start letting the military experts - who warned against this strategy, have the say they deserve in helping me make my decision based on reality, not faith, not ideology, not wishful thinking

        by seanflynn on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:45:00 PM PDT

        •  Point #3 Resonates!

          And so does 4, to a certain extent.

          I think what he needs to use the debate to do is force Bush to admit that all is not well in Iraq--something along the lines of the "can't win the war on terror" moment.  Despite what we know in Blogistan, I really think the average American has no clue how fucked we are over there, and how it is deteriorating.  Mission was accomplished last year, right?  And then we handed over control?  And who's so morbid to actually track casualty rates?  And if there is any level of awareness, it's always "better 1000 dead Americans in Iraq than 3000 dead Americans in NYC."

          If Kerry can deftly make this point without looking like a loser, and if he rattles Bush (or just as good, leads Bush into robotic, talking point repetitions that fly in the face of facts), he might have a chance to plant that seed of doubt in the minds of the swing voters.

          What Kerry really needs is a counter to those canned letters to the editor and emails that paint the rosy picture of how many things have been restored.  Maybe they're true in isolated areas.  It's just sounding more and more like the trend is going the wrong way, and that there's got to be some patriots over there in the service who are sending back reports of the nasty side of things.

          by FaFoFiPe on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:02:00 PM PDT

    •  That's a trap

      Before Kerry is made responsible for fixing Iraq, we should be asking what is Bush going to do to fix his mess. He doesn't have a plan but he's managed to make Kerry responsible for having one. I don't think so. I think a better message is "Bush made this mess and all he can offer is more of the same."

      by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:43:36 PM PDT

      •  Won't be enough

        > Before Kerry is made responsible for fixing Iraq,
        > we should be asking what is Bush going to do to
        > fix his mess.

        Well, there are two perspectives on this:  campaign and future of the world.

        From the campaign perspective, that isn't going to work.  People tend to inertia unless they see a reason for change.  You and I agree that Bush has no plan, but he has Cheney and Rumsfeld snarling at anyone who claims that in public, and that is enough for most voters.  It won't hurt to have secondary figures push this line, but it isn't enough.

        From the perspective of the future of the world (or at least the United States), though, I would sure like to think that Kerry has some idea of what he plans to do.  "More of the same only better" isn't good enough.  I plan to vote for Kerry regardless, but it be better to cast a positive than negative vote.

        sPh

        by sphealey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

        •  Only one plan - withdrawal

          The insurgency is based on resistance to occupation. They don't want us and they don't want us picking their government.

          As noted elsewhere, the civl war/chaos argument is rapdily becoming moot.  The failed state is haven for terrorists argument for staying is pretty silly considering that AQ continues to operate from Pakistan to this day and is unlikely to feel any need to move to Iraq.

          You could be right that people won't change without a plan but since there is no viable plan, militarily or in terms of domestic politics (Kerry can't acknowledge defeat) this leaves onnly hammering Bush on this issue or punting as K/E has to date with little success.

          by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:26:26 PM PDT

          •  I should add

            there is a way to fix this (but it would be close to impossible to sell): An alliance with Sistani and Iran to stabilize Iraq under the Shia with some Kurdish autonomy, in return for improved relations with Iran. Long term lots of upside like access to Iraqi and Iranian oil and movement towards reducing the Iranian threat and Iranian development of nukes, but domestically you would get killed especially by the pro-Likud lobby which is very powerful.

            by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:40:09 PM PDT

            •  Fuck the religious Zionists

              we have let them screw our foreign policy in the Middle East for 2 generations.  I love your plan man!  An "alliance" with Iran that connived at them de facto taking possession of central Iraq, with a quasi-independant or even truly independant Kurdistan and a southern region in the hands of the Kuwaitis is a do-able solution...but it necessitates us telling the Likud to screw off and no longer making our Middle East policy all about Israel.

              by TheGryphon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:51:16 PM PDT

            •  Suni

              The Suni muslems controlled Iraq by force for many, many years.  You do not even mention them above. Don't you think they might, I mean just might, be against a Shia run Iraq? Come on.  Get out and let them resettle their scores.

              by truthbetold on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:19:00 PM PDT

              •  Sorry - thought it was self-evident

                The Sunni minority repressed the Kurds and Shias. In my scenario, the formerly oppressed groups backed by iran's muscle would "settle" the old "scores" decisvely in their favor, with the added benefit of our being extricated while gaining chips with Iran. The tricky part s how to give the Kurds autonomy without upsetting Turkey and convincing Iran that this won't ignite Iranian Kurdish aspirations for autonomy or "Kurdistan".

                by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

                •  That is one of the options

                  Now you are talking.  I must add that another option would be to initially divide the unnatural, western draw Iraq nation into 3 separate nations, and go dfrom there. Kurds, Shia, Sunni all separated intially in their own corners, I mean onclaves!  

                  Let what will be happen from that starting point!

                  by truthbetold on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:44:47 PM PDT

                  •  That scenario

                    would probably meet the most resistance by Iran and Turkey because of their own Kurdish populations' desire for independence. Also, the Kurdish enclave would not be economically viable unless you gave them the northern oilfields which really are in terrirotory that logically would go to the Sunni state.

                    by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:10:26 PM PDT

                    •  It won't matter

                      The end result in 10 years will look the same no matter where we start the ball right now!  Just like in Vietnam, we won't make a difference in the eventual outcome with our trrops there now.  We will just be sacrifcing lives for absolutely no justifiable  moral/ethical reasons.

                      by truthbetold on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:09:57 PM PDT

          •  The north, the Kurds, and Turkey

            A plan for total withdrawl would have to include a settlement between the Kurds and the Turks.  Which has been quite difficult to achieve in the last 1000  years or so.

            sPh

            by sphealey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:42:25 PM PDT

            •  Fuck the Turks too

              they can like it or lump it.  We won't be offering the Kurds any part of Turkey, and we make that clear at the outset.  It could even be good for Turkey, if we encourage their fractious Kurdish minority to emigrate to the new "Kurdistan".  They get rid of a politically unreliable element in their state, and we get regional peace (maybe?)

              by TheGryphon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:53:23 PM PDT

              •  There will be total war between the Kurds and the

                Turks. The Turks don't play that way. They will not cede an inch of Iraq to the Kurds. heck, the Turks invaded Cyprus and no one did anything about it. You think they'll stop because they might hurt the Kurds' feelings.

                No one has ever stood up to the Turks. And no one ever will. They know it. They are 80 million strong with a huge army. They do whatever they want and everyone cowers. That's their history. And they've won too many times to be told otherwise.

                Given their past experience with ethnic cleansing, you can bet that they will not allow a fifth column on their eastern border. They know all too well (having supported their western co-religionists in Albania and Bosnia) that having an enemy on your border means allowing a future trojan horse to thrive, thus risking the future partition of your country.

                Civil War is the only answer to a pull-out of American forces in Iraq. And indeed, Civil War may be the only answer regardless.

                Remember, Milosevic, Tudjman and Izebetgovic had an agreement to amicably split Yugoslavia back in 1992 (the Vance-Owen plan) but it was squashed by the West (esp. James Baker). What ensued, over 100,000 deaths in Bosnia alone, was a bloodbath that didn't need to happen. In fact, the Dayton Plan largely reproduced the results of the Vance-Owen plan.

                Well, the Iraq situation is ten times worse because you have a lot moer people living there. Whereas most foreign nations have a stake in not keeping Yugoslavia together, with Iraq it's just the opposite. Iran and Turkey, even Syria, simply will not allow a peaceful agreement that would split Iraq into federations. Turkey won't go for a Kurdish north (neither will Iran) and iran will not settle for anything less than an oil-rich Islamic theocracy.

                by upstate NY on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:21:55 PM PDT

                •  Greek are you?

                  Seriously, the Turks want to stay our friends.  If we apply the right kind of pressure, they will play ball, and like it.  They want in on the new Europe, they want to stay in NATO, they need a seat at our table (as Muslim Non-Arabs, they know there aren't that many tables around for them).  If we are going to use a more muscular foreign policy, lets rearrange things to our benefit here.  Kurdistan (defined as Northern Iraq) keeps the (huge) regional power of both Iran and Turkey in check.  An alliance between these two powers is, to say the least, unlikely.  Everybody gets something with this plan, and we get out, which all parties want.

                  by TheGryphon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:38:15 PM PDT

                  •  What you write is very naive.

                    Turkey has a long history of defying the American carrot. Heck, they didn't even let us use the American air bases in Turkey to attack Iraq this time around!! They defied us in Cyprus.

                    For you to dismiss 80 years of history that eassily is just a tad disingenuous.

                    Show me how I'm wrong on Cyprus. Show me how I'm wrong on Turkey's defiance of the US on Iraq. Show me how the Turkish military is going to withstand a majority of citizens who prefer bin laden to bush, 98% of whom are aligned against the US on Iraq. The military there has killed over 30,000 Kurds in 5 years. You really think they will simply allow the formation of a Kurdish federation? Why would they? Why would they risk future civil wars on their own turf?

                    by upstate NY on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 06:51:55 PM PDT

        •  ALL kERRY HAS TO SAY TO THE PRESS IS............

          "Like your Sec of State Powell said, "you broke it- you own it".  Well Bush owns Iraq, now you are asking me about cleaning up his screw-up.  I would go to other nations and try my hardest to get them involved.  I would consider pulling troops out of Iraq to find Osama"  But Kerry will never mention Osama.

          by Kalki on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:16:55 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        We are in a deep hole.  It is not clear how we can climb out of it, short of selling out Israel, which is not in the cards.  But the blame ought to be placed where it belongs.  Kerry is not responsible for this mess.  It is not obvious that he can get us out of it.  But it is obvius that the person who put us there cannot get us out of it.

        by Knut Wicksell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:02:35 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        The rebugs and the media have turned this into a what does Kerry have to offer when this election should be about whether we want more of the same.
        Define the same as FUBAR and the answer is obvious.

        On that note, does the american public know that these "areas", "regions", "sections", we don't have control over are in cities with large populations? What looks like some dusty little town without so much as a Starbucks is in reality:

        Samarra=Baton Rouge
        Fallujah=Buffalo
        Baquba=Pittsburgh
        Ramadi=Atlanta
        Najaf=Washington D.C.
        Basrah=Philadelphia
        Bagdahd=L.A, Detroit, Boston, and Cleveland
        

        by moses on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 08:29:07 PM PDT

    •  Announce to the World that the War on Iraq

      was wrong and needs to be ended.

      Request the assistance of the United Nations and traditional allies to help begin peace-keeping operations in Iraq.

      Call a cease-fire.

      Remove US from lead position.

      Get "friendly" Islamic countries on-side to help deflect the belief that this is a Christian/Islamic war.

      Bring an international council together to shore up the Iraq Council.

      Get respected in-country leaders together to hash out a governing structure.

      Call the leaders of the various factions together to understand the demands/requirements of each group. Hash it out. Hash it out. Hash it out.

      by Hrothgar on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

  •  I'm also reminded of David Gergen's

    comment on the Newshour back in early summer: that the election would be determined by two figures--job numbers and body count. If the body count went up (and how grimly it has) and the job numbers went down (if they're not down, they're at least stalled), then Bush would have a hard time getting re-elected.

    by orchid314 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:47:50 PM PDT

    •  Warrior President backs down..

      the election would be determined by two figures--job numbers and body count. If the body count went up (and how grimly it has) and the job numbers went down (if they're not down, they're at least stalled), then Bush would have a hard time getting re-elected. News coverage of Iraq seems to be back on cable news, therefore, I predict the poll #s for Kerry will rise soon. Bush & Co have ordered the military to pull back and just use bombing strikes to minimize casualties prior to the war. In order to do this however, they have surrendered many cities to the Iraqui insurgents.This warrior President is backing down and hiding his troops. Two videos not to be missed: On www.c-span.org search for "Hersh" on video search, you'll see his STUNNING speech on Iraq and how were losing, dated 9/10/04. and Bill Mahr is on Larry King Live on CNN, it repeats at 12 midnite for all the night owls here.

      by undersiege on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:22:00 PM PDT

  •  Old Cold War Liberal

    Good point.  Bush is losing the War in Iraq, arguably is losing the War in Afghanistan, and most certainly is not winning the War against al-Qaeda.  Kerry-Edwards should point out the obvious.  American foreign policy is at a dangerous cross roads and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Rice just keep making things worse and worse.  

    by hmjsj on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:07:33 PM PDT

•  Only way to talk about Iraq is to talk about Viet.

  For U.S. troops in Iraq, one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should be debating this war, not that one."

  Americans have a hard time talking about difficult and complex subjects, and a very hard time admitting mistakes.  Combined with our election campaign culture of "wait for an opening and stomp all over him" and the definition of gaffe (when a politician accidently tells the truth), that means we cannot discuss Iraq directly.

  But if it must be discussed, it must.  So instead we are fighting over the candidates' records during "Vietnam".  Which is really 80% Iraq and only 20% real (or pseudo-real) history of Vietnam.

  That's the way it is going to be from now until November I am afraid.

  sPh

  by sphealey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:25:14 PM PDT

•  Perhaps if you were in Baghdad

  living in the Green Zone, you might have hoped against hope that the Iraqis might be fooled for a little while by "sovereignty".

  by Canadian Reader on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:26:44 PM PDT

•  monday night football starts tonight.....

  there's still a war going on?

  by route66 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:28:02 PM PDT

  •  Right

    I was in San Jose this weekend, over on Santana.  No war there.  There is a complete disconnect between what we feel and know, and what is going on here.  No war here.

    by Knut Wicksell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:04:43 PM PDT

•  Kerry on Iraq

  I got some flack for putting up a diary that argued Kerry was right to have stood up at the Grand Canyon a month or so & said he'd have voted the same way, had he to do it over again.

  I still view this as an opportunity for Kerry, because from where I'm standing Bush is as AWOL on this war as he was on the last one.  What is his plan?  Where is the leadership?  What has he got, other than "blah blah blah 9/11"?  Bush started this war but he isn't interested in being accountable for what's gone down on his watch & taking on the responsibility by having a real plan for Iraq.  Yes, Kerry voted to let Bush go to war - well, Bush won't stand up and be accountable for that, but Kerry should.

  by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:28:10 PM PDT

  •  Re: Kerry on Iraq

    "because from where I'm standing Bush is as AWOL on this war as he was on the last one."

    I like that line.

    ---

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

    If you want to win the debate over Iraq, make Bush's behavior in the last war clear to uninformed voters.  Send a few bucks to Texans for Truth.

    by NoDissentAllowed on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:33:25 PM PDT

    •  I don't have a few bucks

      but I am looking at going to some [Elite New England University] for Kerry events in the near future, so I'll be doing something.

      I seriously think that it would be a great thing for Kerry to take the leadership role on this war - all the commentary is saying.. it's FUBAR so therefore Kerry has to explain away his vote, it's FUBAR so therefore Bush is trying to hide the issue.  But what if the issue becomes.. it's FUBAR, and Kerry being a stand up guy and a leader by saying "Yes, I voted to authorize it, I take responsibility (where Bush won't) and I will lead."  Bush is hiding from the real consequences of war.  AGAIN.

      by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:38:35 PM PDT

      •  Re: I don't have a few bucks

        "I don't have a few bucks, but I am looking at going to some [Elite New England University] for Kerry events in the near future, so I'll be doing something."

        Oh great!  That'll be swing state central.  :-)

        Get your ass to Pennsylvania for a weekend.  I'll bet you can find out how at the Kerry events.

        by NoDissentAllowed on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:45:21 PM PDT

        •  Even better, try to convert the enemy

          I spent part of the afternoon along the motorcade route for Bush's visit to West Michigan.  On my way home from school (I am a student teacher), I noticed that they had no-parking signs on the street.  There were also Bush/Cheney signs all the way down the road farther on.  Figured that instead of trying to go to the rally to protest, I would take the easy way out and just hang out along the route.

          To make it even easier, it was a block from my parents house so we had a staging area.

          My 3 1/2 year old niece even participated.  She had a sign I made for her that said "my deficit?"

          The military escort gave me a dirty look for my Abu Ghraib = Wrong (big W) but it was really a swipe at Dubya.

          The good news is that even in a city that voted 70% for Bush the last time around, we did get some honks and thumbs up from passers by.  The motorcade was booking so fast, they may not have even seen the signs from the protected confines of the Bush motorcoaches.  Plus, we needed to be 75-100 ft. away from the route.  These guys really are chicken shit.

          I watched part of Dubyas speech before we left to take our places and here's the question of the day: Why does he need to use notes and a podium to give the same speech he gives 3-4 times a day for weeks on end.  Is it because he obviously can't think on his feet?  If that is the case, he is just not qualified to be president.  How depressing.  What a difference from John Kerry.

          by Mlle L on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:17:47 PM PDT

          •  Signs. Lots of Signs and Bumper Stickers.

            
            

                   REPUBLICANS FOR KERRY

                   COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY

              We better start doing this before ROVE starts it from the other end...

              As someone else correctly called it:  asymetrical warfare.  3-D's a bitch for the 2-D thinkers to handle, or fight.

            by BenGoshi on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:37:34 PM PDT

        •  New Hampshire is not far, that's the plan

          Also, phone banking.

          A trip to Ohio is in the works, in fact.

          I can't afford to go to PA on my own, my car wouldn't make it.  I am really broke right now, it's a problem.

          by daria g on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:52:35 PM PDT

•  Map Showing "Enemy Territory"

  Something(s) we're not seeing and should -- regularly -- are maps of Iraq and Afghanistan shaded to indicate the areas controlled by anti-American forces.

  It's one thing to say that we're losing both wars, it's quite another to see, geographically, what that means.

  Has anyone else seen such a graphic(s)?

  by workersuntie on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:28:50 PM PDT

  •  The problem is...

    ...with this sort of civil war, there's no way to easily display 'ours' and 'theirs'. It's possible to show graphically where there have been disruptions. And maybe an intensity of color over time to show how many 'incidents' there have been. That's about the only way, I think, that it would be possible to display how much 'ground' is being lost.

    by reklemrov on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:34:34 PM PDT

    •  Large Areas of Afghanistan ...

      ... are controlled by warlords and are therefore out of US control. Those would be easy to show, as would inflamed regions and specific flashpoints -- with dates and casualty figures -- from both Afghanistan and Iraq. I'd think a savvy, creative cartographer could knock out something very powerful (the truth can be like that sometimes) without breaking a sweat.

      In the late '60s South Vietnam was comparably difficult to map for areas of control, but in those days we often saw maps that succeeded in conveying the broad realities.

      Oughtta be seing em now, too.

      by workersuntie on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:47:17 PM PDT

  •  you're so right

    My friends who were kids during Vietnam talk about the map of that country that got imprinted on their memories from watching the news.  That would be an important step here.

    by MissLaura on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:36:32 PM PDT

  •  Map showing Iraq's 'security problems'...

    It's not exactly what you were talking about, but the BBC has an interactive map of the security picture in Iraq:
    
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3651856.stm

    by humbucker on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 02:46:47 PM PDT

  •  I've seen one of Iraq

    and until then it never struck me. We're not "failing to defeat 'insurgents'". We're being kicked out of the country. One city at a time.

    by cdreid on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 04:51:51 PM PDT

•  Three Months

  At the end of this month, the Allawi government will have been in charge for three months.  Three months has been the point when the Iraqi population starts to get restless.  The problems with their electricity, water, and sewage have not been solved.  Indeed, U.S. monies allocated for the reconstruction of Iraq are being diverted into funding the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.  Iraqi doctors are fleeing Iraq for Jordan and other neighboring countries, leaving the Iraqi medical system overwhelmed.    

  We are winning the battles and losing the war. I know our troops want to be peacekeepers.  The environment in which they are operating forces them to make bad judgments.  

  by eafredel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:29:20 PM PDT

•  the problem Kos

  is that people see and hear what they want to see and hear.  I mean WTF, how many people still believe a definite link between Iraq and 9/11 or al qaeda.And our VP still making that case, despite all evidence to the contrary.
  And people dont want to equate Vietnam with Iraq, they want to feel good, like we're the wonderful liberators.

  So Bush and Cheney et al get up there and keep painting this BS rosy picture, and people just dont want to see anything else. We need lots of retired generals and others to get out there and start confessing to what a major fuck up this whole thing has been from the get go.

  And to keep pointing out that despite all the warnings, 9/11 happened on their watch.

  by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:29:53 PM PDT

  •  They beleive the saddam-AQ link

    because until yesterday the Dems were too chickenshit to directly confront them on it. Edwards  said it yesterday but it should have been said from the beginnnig. Kerry needs to stop equating Iraq with the "WOT". They need to hammer these points, the failures in Iraq and before, during and after 9/11.

    TANG is fine but this is where Bush is truly vulnerable. So far he's managed to turn the table and put Kerry on the defensive on all of this stuff. But a sustained message... "failing to make us safer" for the next 8 weeks is a winner.

    JM has two excellent posts on this today at Talking Points Memo

    by Lcohen on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:38:22 PM PDT

  •  It's too big to fail

    It seems that the main problem with talking about Iraq and 9/11 is that they are such monumental, immense national security fuckups it's difficult for people to digest it right now. Historically, we'll see that, but right now it's hard for a lot of people to get a handle on it.

    Ever try to read a billboard from five feet away? You can't. You can only see bits of it, and that's what gets traction right now: who voted for exactly what, and the precise turn-by-turn directions to get out of a mess we haven't even mapped out yet.

    Besides that, the implications are too scary for a lot of people who then refuse to think about it. So they descend into magical thinking, figuring if I don't want it to be a failure, it wasn't a failure.

    Basically, Bush got lucky that he screwed up so massively. If he had screwed up the response to a garden-variety take-this-plane-to-Cuba hijacking, or botched the invasion of Grenada, he'd be ridiculed. Instead, he's being buoyed up by people too scared to accept the truth.

    by RichK on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:48:22 PM PDT

    •  "Magical thinking"

      ...says it all.

      "Our President said it was important, Sadaam was a bad man, we can't have another 9-11, Our President believes in God so at least he means well, we have to stay the course so Our Troops didn't die in vain."

      How do you get through to well-meaning people who still rattle off lines like this? It leaves me with my jaw flapping open as I try to figure out where to begin, and meanwhile they've gone on down the vegetable-and-dairy aisle and the opportunity is lost. :(

      by Xan on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 05:41:13 PM PDT

•  Why are we still there?

  Can anyone express a sound rationale for staying in Iraq? We've lost control of a lot of the country, and our presence provides targets for the insurgency to attack. I think a lot of people are afraid to admit that we've lost there. "We can't leave, Iraq will sink into chaos," is what I hear. But isn't it already total chaos?

  Afghanistan (post-Soviet) and Somalia are recent examples of countries left to chaos. Somalia seems to be slowly emerging from chaos, but its effects on the rest of the world seem minimal. You can argue when the Soviet Union quit Afghanistan it led to the Taliban and harboring of al-Qaeda. But we provided the training for many of them (including bin Laden) and is that any worse than what exists in Iraq today? I keep hearing how al-Zarqawi is running around Iraq being evil. Maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran or Turkey will try to carve up Iraq, but other than the oil ( a bad reason) why do we need to lose troops there?

  We are using our helicopter gunships to fire on crowds of civilians. To what end? We are propping up the puppet Allawi government, but it will most likely fall. All we do is delay the inevitable.

  Over 1000 troops are dead because of Iraq. Even Kerry says we should expect four more years there. Do we want to sacrifice another 3000 for that country? It's not going to bring about the kind of shiny happy democracy we claim we want. Only Iraqis will determine what government is there.

  by puppethead on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:30:06 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    Can anyone express a sound rationale for staying in Iraq? We've lost control of a lot of the country, and our presence provides targets for the insurgency to attack. I think a lot of people are afraid to admit that we've lost there. "We can't leave, Iraq will sink into chaos," is what I hear. But isn't it already total chaos?

    The important thing is that we (the Administration) does our best to make it not look like total chaos.

    Perpetuate the myth of order and progression long enough to train an impressive-looking number of Iraqis how to march, hold a press conference, make sure they get on videotape, declare victory and leave while Iraqi's hold the airport for us against the insurgents.

    It can go to hell after we leave - it won't be seen as our fault, and that's all that counts.

    Remember, appearance is everything.  We have to stay the course long enough so that we don't look bad when we flip flop, I mean, declare victory and leave.

    Last man to die for a mistake?  What mistake?  Invading Iraq was a glorious liberation!

    (/wingnuttery)

    by Craziel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:35:41 PM PDT

  •  This is pure heresy, of course, but...

    We were safer with a brutal dictator in power there, as long as we had our foot on his neck.  Not a bad arrangement, really, at least compared to the eternal war we're now stuck with.  The only drawback was that it relied upon the one thing the Bush administration had the least of--patience. My belief is that the U.S. administration--whoever it happens to be--will wait for the Sadam execution.  Then we'll mostly withdraw (er, turn it over the the "free" Iraqi people).  What other choice is there?  Do we mark time until U.S. casualties make disengagement palatable to the American public?  Aren't we already there?  

    by sharkstooth on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:49:19 PM PDT

•  What Kerry should say

  "George W. Bush isn't unfit to lead American foreign policy because he was AWOL from the TANG in 1972 and '73. He's unfit because he's proven he's incompetent now, by allowing Al Queda to squirm away in Afghanistan and launching the Iraq mess."

  Kerry should then clearly outline at most two things he'd do to to start cleaning up the Bush mess.
  

  by s59berg on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    Repeat the TANG / AWOL issue by prefacing everything about Iraq and saying that's NOT what you are going to talk about and what is important.

    JFK:  "Folks will make what they will of the fact that the President's People question whether I shed enough blood for my country while he cannot even directly answer the chages that he squandered taxpayer money by shirking his promise to serve his country -- they will make of that what they will, but what is really important . . .

    by MRL on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

•  Baghdad never fell....

  -- melt away in the face of superior US firepower during the US invasion.

  As for Viet Nam, declare eternal stalemate and for god's sake, do as the Europeans have said for months - from last winter:
  talk about the war that still matters, still bleeds daily...

  We clearly have a free fire zone rule of engagement war inside cities, and we exercise it over wrecked armoured vehicles (and I do know why, but, 22 dead).  As we killed yet another journalist.

  by Marisacat on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

•  Head in the sand Powell

  on little timmmy's show yeaterday had this to say.

  SECRETARY POWELL: Of course. I'm troubled that we have to do a better job of conveying to the world what we have achieved in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Two terrible regimes gone, 55 million people given the promise of freedom. The people who should be getting criticized right now are the insurgents and the terrorists and the old remnants of the Taliban and the old remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, who are trying to keep the Iraqi and Afghan people from getting to a better, brighter future. Those are the ones that should be getting the criticism, but we're getting the criticism right now.

  But we're confident of what we're doing. We're confident of our strategy. We're confident that we've done the right thing in both Afghanistan and in Iraq, and this is not the time to get weak in the knees or faint about it, but to drive on and finish the work that we've started.

  link

  So essentially our problem is that we are doing a poor job of telling people we are doing great in Iraq. If we only had a better PR opperation things would be grand.

  by Mike S on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:33:04 PM PDT

  •  ha! "the promise of freedom"

    I love that about "55 million people given the promise of freedom."  And, what, 280 million of us in the U.S. with our freedoms chipped away?  (Although we do have these tasty freedom fries to make up for our losses in the freedoms of speech and from search and seizure departments.)  And are those 55 million people waiting for their "freedom" kind of like we're waiting for Bush to be the face of compassionate conservatism?

    by MissLaura on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:41:22 PM PDT

    •  They've outsourced our freedoms...

      ...to Iraq and Afghanistan!

      It all makes sense now.

      by FaFoFiPe on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:11:52 PM PDT

  •  Key words...

    "promise of freedom."

    Not "freedom."

    And I'll bet that it'll be a long time before that promise is fulfilled.

    by WWGray on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:42:06 PM PDT

    •  other key word

      "premise of freedom"

      not

      "promise of freedom"

      not

      "freedom"

      by pitbullEmily on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:28:41 PM PDT

      •  Freedom-related program activities

        by CT Yankee on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 03:56:13 PM PDT

        •  Freedom...

          Freedom wears women's underpants.

          by FaFoFiPe on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:12:40 PM PDT

  •  The Little Engine that Could

    Someone in the White House needs to learn that The Little Engine that Could is a child's fable, not a handbook for foreign policy and warmongering.

    by freelunch on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:42:27 PM PDT

    •  Al-Arabiya Journalist killed on camera

      This is a video report from the BBC.  It seems the U.S. forces were trying blow up an abandonned bradley.  This guy was a Palestinian journalist working for Al-Arabiya.

      Video (realplayer)

      by enozinho on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:36:02 PM PDT

      •  Another journalist's account

        is here. Seems like the rules of engagement have opened up, as the U.S. has offered several bogus excuses for targeting unarmed civilians.

        by Cache on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:18:47 AM PDT

  •  This is EXACTLY

    what I remember all my Republican relatives saying when I was a kid. "If all the defeatists would just shut up, we'd win the war!! If the real story was told, the story of all of our successes, why, there'd be no dissention and we'd be winning!"

    They never ever figured out that there was dissention because we had a losing strategy (as in, we never understood the place and had no business being there). They never got it.

    Powell is knee-deep in this ever since he lied to the UN. He can't back down now, no matter who he calls "fucking crazies" in private. He may be worse than all of them. He knows better, but he still supports the crazies!

    by Jeff Boatright on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:23:13 PM PDT

  •  "Promise" OMFG ROFLMAO

    Theze fucking goalposts move on the daily!!!

    by Demise on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 01:43:51 PM PDT

  •  And the strategy is?

    Mr. P. has never articulated that strategy.  It would be nice to know what it is, so we could judge whether it is succeeding or not.

    by Knut Wicksell on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 07:08:03 PM PDT

•  Kerry's Message: Bush is losing

  I think Kerry has stayed away from this message because the election was too far off, and events might make the charge irrelevant.  But it is now too late to worry about such things.  Kerry has to make the charge and back it up.  It's the same thing he said in Rolling Stone so very long ago:  Bush fucked it up.

  Kerry can and must make the charge:

  Bush declared victory to stage a blatantly political stunt on an aircraft carrier.  There was no victory then and there is no victory now:  Americans being killed in greater numbers, chaos is spreading, the interim government is losing control, there is no end in sight.

  The current leadership and its policies are failing so we must change the leadership and policies to change the results.

  Bush/Cheney are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.  The solution is to get rid of them.

  Nothing Bush said before the war turned out to be true.

  Nothing Bush has said would happen has happened.

  Nothing Bush is doing is making the situation better.

  Much of what Bush is doing is making the situation worse, both in Iraq and around the world.

  Bush does not even acknowledge the problems because he will not admit that he caused them and he will not admit that he has no solutions.

  Bush is losing the war in Iraq.

  Say it loud and say it every day.

  by James Earl on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:33:28 PM PDT

  •  He also needs a plan

    People won't jump ship en masse from the Bush/Cheney camp unless Kerry has a plan for Iraq.  He needs to spell out very clearly what he will do and when.

    This sounds bad, but it doesn't even matter if a Kerry plan is viable.  Given the popular opinion in Iraq, as soon as elections are held, we will be asked to leave by the new government.  (Well, our soldiers will be asked to leave.  Our money can stay.)  So anything Kerry says about his plans for Iraq will be 99% rendered irrelevant sometime next year.  If a democratically elected government tells us to get out, then we get out.  No one can criticize us for that.

    There isn't going to be a happy ending to Iraq.  Right now, I am more concerned with preventing Bush & Co. from making yet another Iraq-sized strategic blunder than with trying to make sure the Iraq mess gets cleaned up.

    by stillnotking on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

    •  Kerry's Plan

      Kerry cannot and should not issue any detailed plan on what he would do in Iraq.  

      As a practical matter, any such plan would border on fantasy because he will not take office until late January and the situation is too fluid to propose plans that far off.

      As a political matter, any detailed plan will be picked apart in the corporate press/media, while the actual plan in action, the one that is failing, will get no such examination.

      Kerry's plan should focus on five points: