Daily Kos

Things keep getting worse

by kos

Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:20:33 PM PDT

It's FUBAR.
More than 200 U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq in the past week, the Pentagon said Tuesday, and the total since the invasion was launched in March 2003 is now 7,245.

Of the 219 wounded in the past week, 81 were returned to duty; the 138 others were not.

The Pentagon generally reports its wounded totals each week. Fatality totals are updated daily.

The number of Americans killed and wounded has grown rapidly amid an intensifying and increasingly effective insurgency. There were more wounded over the past five months -- about 4,000 -- than in the first 13 months of the war, when there were about 3,300, according to Pentagon reports.

Body armor is the only thing keeping Iraq from producing Vietnam-type KIA figures. As Newsweek noted, this is Phase II of the insurgency. Phase I, recruitment, is finished. Now the insurgents are out for blood (to the tune of over 70 attacks every day).

Weve lost this war. We've literally lost entire swaths of Iraqi territory to the insurgents. We've empowered Al Qaida and Islamist militants with new recruits and pictures of prison torture and rape to fuel their cause. We''ve stretched our military thin, hurt recruitment, made it impossible to respond to actual threats.

In short, this is the biggest political and military blunder this country has faced since -- I'll let the historians decide when. But as things are going, this is going to have worse repercussions for our nation than Vietnam ever did.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 182 comments

  •  Key Question (none / 1)

    This is what Kerry should ask Bush during the debates: How do you define victory in Iraq and what are your plans to get there from here?  Kerry better have a solid answer as well. My head will explode if they both start quoting Nixon.

    "If the opposite of a pro is con then look beyond this. The opposite of Congress must be Progress." - Cage

    by Guancous on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:19:09 PM PDT

    •  NOW THAT YOUVE CHEYNEYED IRAQ (none / 1)

      How about we find Osama now.  In case you forgot, he was the one resposible for killing 2000 Americans.

      by Kalki on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Krugman spoke to this today (none / 1)

      I'm sure it's been linked already, but it is a good one.

      Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq - a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what - aside from pretending that things are going fine - Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it's bad politics to admit a mistake.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:28:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry is a trained lawyer and (4.00 / 3)

      prosecutor.  They never ask a question unless they know the answer to it in advance of asking.

      And having a good follow up which trumps the answer given.

      A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

      by jnagarya2 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:15:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A better question (none / 0)

      Kerry should ask Bush how Bush plans to handle the stituation of losing the Iraq war.  A bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, except that the charge is true.  Puts Bush on the defensive from the start.  And Bush has no good answer.  If he says we didn't lose, it can be easily refuted, if he actually gives a reasonable plan, it's an admission that he lost the war.

      Local Stores, local schools, local work

      by Menachem Mavet on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:50:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a Trap! (none / 0)

        As Akbar would say...

        Don't ask the question that way.  If you say we've lost then Bush gets to run against "Old Mr. Defeatist" who "doesn't believe in the greatness of America".

        It's much better to ask him what he plans to do to stop the slow constant killing of our men and women in uniform, and why anyone should trust his plan since it's failed so far.

        The Republicans were right about one thing - The media is irresponsible.

        by nightsweat on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:12:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Read this (none / 0)

      Guest Column: Stage Three in Iraq

      By William S. Lind

      As I noted in a recent column, the Marines have blanked the news from the Sunni triangle since taking over much of that area. A front-page story in The New York Times on Aug. 29 lifted the veil, and what it revealed was not pretty. The war in the Sunni triangle is shifting its base from the Ba'ath Party, which still operates within the framework of the state, to religious elements which do not.

      This is exactly what Fourth Generation theory predicted would happen. The minutes from the January 23, 2004 session of our Fourth Generation seminar read:

      "Then moved the discussion to Iraq and the U.S. occupation there by pointing out that the current situation is characterized by three elements. The first was chaos, the second was a war of national liberation (waged by the Ba'ath Party) and the third was fourth generation warfare. The second of these elements was decreasing in importance and intensity but the third was increasing.

      This is the development the Times now reports:

      "Events in two Sunni Muslim cities that stand astride the crucial western approaches to Baghdad have moved significantly against American plans to build a secular democracy in Iraq."

      "Both the cities, Fallujah and Ramadi, and much of Anbar Province, are now controlled by fundamentalist militias .... "

      "American efforts to build a government structure around former Ba'ath Party stalwarts ... have collapsed. Instead, the former Hussein loyalists, under threat of beheadings, kidnappings and humiliation, have mostly resigned or defected to the fundamentalists, or been killed. Enforcers for the old government, including former Republican Guard officers, have put themselves in the service of fundamentalist clerics they once tortured at Abu Ghraib."

      Last spring, the Marines made a deal with the Ba'ath Party in Fallujah: Keep the place quiet and we'll let you run it while keeping our hands off it. As has so often been the case in the history of war, it was the right move, too late. Throughout Iraq, the balance had already swung away from the Ba'ath and any other forces that might have been able to re-create an Iraqi state, to non-state, Fourth Generation elements. The experiment in Fallujah was worth trying - the only other option was destroying the city in order to save it, as we recently did in Najaf - but the Ba'ath was by then already a fading force. Of its Fallujah Brigade, the Times writes:

      "The Fallujah Brigade is in tatters now, reduced to sharing tented checkpoints on roads into the city with the [Islamic] militants, its headquarters in Fallujah abandoned, like the buildings assigned to the national guard. Men assigned to the brigade, and to the two guard battalions, have mostly fled, Iraqis in Fallujah say, taking their families with them, and handing their weapons to the militants."

      Instead of the Ba'ath, what we now face in Fallujah is a genuinely dangerous opponent. Its idol is not Saddam, but Allah. The Times reports that:

      "The militants' principal power center is a mosque in Fallujah led by an Iraqi cleric, Abdullah al-Janabi, who has instituted a Taliban-like rule in the city ... with an Islamic militant group, Unity and Holy War, that American intelligence ... [has linked] to al Qaeda .... "

      By invading Iraq, the United States in effect took Fallujah and much of the rest of Anbar Province from Saddam and gave it to Osama bin Laden. If that is George Bush's definition of victory, it would be interesting to know what he would consider a defeat.

      From the standpoint of our forces in Iraq, the main problem the third stage in the war there presents is that we have no one to talk to, no one to make deals with. As we saw in Fallujah in April, it was possible to make a deal with the Ba'ath - a deal the Ba'ath genuinely wanted to carry out, though it proved unable to do so. Mullah al-Janabi and the thousands like him will have no interest in talking with us, unless we tell them we need their assistance in converting to Islam.

      The minutes from the January meeting of our seminar concluded:

      "In Fallujah as the Marines relieve the Army ... we should talk to the resistance, if we can. If it is Ba'ath Party members we can probably do some serious negotiations with them. Ultimately, they have as much interest in establishing and maintaining order as we do (if they have any thought of returning to power). However, if the Ba'athists do not control the resistance then all bets are indeed now off."

      Guest Contributor William S. Lind, a veteran defense policy analyst, is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, where this article originally appeared.

      by gooddognigel on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:01:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  CIA UNIT ON BIN LADEN UNDERSTAFFED (none / 0)

      Today's NYTimes has an article buried in the Washington section:  "CIA Unit on bin Laden is understaffed, a Senior Official tells Lawmakers":

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15cia.html

      by concernedamerican on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:44:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a good thing... (none / 0)

    It keeps us from talking about the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 run free, are fully regrouping, and planning deadlier, more spectacular attacks.

    Nice job, Mr. President. Decisive leadership!

    DAILY SHØW/CØLBERT REPØRT SPØILER THREAD Møn-Thu 11PM EST, øn DKøs! Share yøur musical tastes

    by Skubwa on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:21:38 PM PDT

  •  O/T - FINALLY! The first decent TVad re tax cuts ! (4.00 / 3)

    I was wondering how long it would take... Between DNC, Kerry, and MoveOn PAC, I'd been waiting to see just ONE commercial that would sway a swing voter.

    FINALLY!

    Allison Anders directed this one -- and it hits the mark in a way no single Democratic ad has hit to date.  Memo to Kerry team:  You want to make an effective as, study this one.

    http://www.moveonpac.org/10weeks/video/anders/big/index.shtml

    yay!

    _ it's now a fight to the finish>> Dean progressives v. Clinton centrists.

    by rhfactor on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:22:17 PM PDT

  •  The repercussions will be the worst if... (none / 0)

    ...half the country ever stops drinking the Kool-aid.

    I think they'll never be able to understand what's happening over there with a mature mind.

    We absolutely must win this election.

    Nation of Sheep Ruled by Wolves Owned by Pigs

    by DaddyO on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:23:30 PM PDT

  •  Do you think... (none / 1)

    That one day one of the 138 who weren't returned to duty will run for President and have people not yet in Iraq question whether they were really wounded enough to have been designated not to be returned to duty?

    Sorry if that's off topic on just a galling summary of the state of affairs.

    Anyone think the media will ever decide to ask Bush why he can't explain his policy as often as they ask that question of Kerry?  (it's bogus when they ask Kerry because he gives a plausible answer every time that is the same, whereas Bush is CIC right now and never gives any answer)

    by dcg on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

  •  Strategically, it's worse than Vietnam. (4.00 / 6)

    One of the tremendous ironies about this is that The Father said that the first Gulf War finally allowed us to put Vietnam behind us.

    The Son has now put us in the ultimate Catch-22.

    My guess is that time will tell us sooner, rather than later, what a blunder this was. And the idea that only historians will be able to tell us the outcome "After we're all dead" might apply to his father, but not him, and certainly not my generation.

    by jblumes on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:27:02 PM PDT

    •  Totally agree (4.00 / 8)

      The Iraq Folly is definitely worse than Vietnam from a strategic point of view.  Vietnam, while a war of horrific carnage, was in an isolated part of the world.  Moreover, the objectives of the Vietnamese Communists were always clearly limited to a "war of national liberation".  Not all the enemies we are creating in Iraq will have such a limited agenda.  

      The worst part is that the consequences of this folly were far too obvious to any observer that tuned out the Washington propaganda and cast a cold eye at the facts on the ground in late 2002.

      MA-02

      by Dancing Larry on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:36:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the big lie (3.50 / 2)

        I'm kinda afraid that the worse things get over there, the more delusional U.S. voters will become. Because everything was built on lies, admitting to oneself that the whole endeavor is flawed might be more than one can handle.

        And the way to rid this frightening thought from one's mind is to convince oneself that there is a plan and rationale and to vote for Bush.

        ...please tell me I'm wrong!!

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:54:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you're right (4.00 / 2)

          I've thought the same thing.  The increasing amount of cognitive dissonance required to vote for the current administration is causing its adherents to become angrier and angrier at anyone perceived to be opposing it.  I pose the question:  do you think the hunt for someone to blame for the lack of success of Bush's policies has begun yet?  Since the Republicans control all three branches of government and have been completely compliant, no one can argue that there have been political obstacles to Bush's wishes.  He's gotten everything he asked for.

          The domestic economic effects are just beginning to show up - the substantial increase in medicare premiums, for example.  The elderly that I know of are pretty incensed, but I don't know that many.  We can confidently expect more of the same if Bush is reelected.  The foreign policy blunders are glaring and obvious, and bringing worse news by the day.  Right now Bush supporters are dealing with this by denial - success is just around the corner - but do you think that a move to blaming some opposition figure or group is imminent?

          by Pellice on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:09:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, no YOU'RE right (4.00 / 2)

              The anger management issue amongst the cognitively disabled worries me more and more.  I personally was hoping and in fact expecting a decisive move against Bush that would put any legitimacy issues in the shade.  And it may yet happen.  But a 51% to 49% result either way will be a disaster.  There are already people with whom I will simply not even think to bring politics or related issues up.  Because we will only end up shouting.

            The bitter irony behind "Uniter, not a divider" becomes starker by the day.  I am a partisan granted, but generally speaking I live in a fact-based reality.  I predicted, based on best available information and readily available history, that the Iraqi war was going to be a huge clusterfuck.  Am I bragging?  I dunno.  But the facts are the facts and you can knock yourself out over at Legacy dKos trying to find a single post to the contrary.  And the same goes for Bush's Guard service and the efficacy of tax cuts generating increased tax revenues and/or job increases.  They don't, they never have, and the plain results of the last four years demonstrate that.  So if we go down fighting I will have the grim satisfaction of knowing that the headlines of a second Bush Administration will in all likelyhood fully bear out my world view.

            But the consequences of a Kerry Presidency won on a razor edge are totally unpredictable.  And I don't know whether good news or bad news will be better in the short term.  Either way there are potentially thousands of Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs out there to be driven into blind rage by being marginalized.  And the better Dems do the deeper the potential rage.  A clean sweep of Congress and the prospect of appointing three or more Supremes, putting any overturn of Roe v Wade beyond the event horizon risks creating our own Intifada - with high-capacity magazines.

            Pollkatz: Bush Approval

            by Bruce Webb on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:07:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your both right, but listen to yourselves (none / 1)

              Another Bush term would be a disaster of unparalleled proportions.  A Kerry term is an unknown.  What is better:  the worst outcome you can imagine or the possibility that these reactionary psychos unmask themselves for the anti-democratic Theocracy wanters they are?  I think the healthiest thing for our democracy (long term) is a Kerry win and social unrest from the right as a result.  From time to time the Tree of Liberty ...
              They MUST be unmasked or we can never be rid of them.

              "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate" John Locke

              by TheGryphon on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:48:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And now Gryphon is right (none / 0)

                But let me clarify.  Anything like 2000, with a margin of 547 votes in a single state determining the outcome, given the background of suspect electronic voting machines in this upcoming election, puts us in Venezuela territory.  I don't want to march in the streets demanding my lost Democracy - I've got a big project going at work, and skirmishing in the streets against Fascists isn't in the work plan.  But I guess I'll be there if I have to.

                Pollkatz: Bush Approval

                by Bruce Webb on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 02:51:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't plan to "skirmish" (none / 0)

                  the Fascists have graciously allowed me to buy assualt weapons...and if push comes to shov, I know how to use 'em.
                    Seriously though, we had no idea in 2000.  If we had a crysal ball, we'd have gone to the barricades for Al Gore.  Now we know.  If there is a close result in Bush's favor, I don't think we can afford to let it slide.

                  "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate" John Locke

                  by TheGryphon on Fri Sep 17, 2004 at 08:52:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps "stupid voters" had (none / 0)

                    "no idea in 2000".

                    But that is not true of all of us.  I, for one, have never shut up about the election being stolen.  Those who were intially against it, but decided to pretend a Bushit legitimacy, are where now?  Denying that anyone could know what a lying liar and election thief would do?  Don't you get it?  They lie and steal!

                    What was to "get" except that democracy was subverted by treason, in which colluded 5 on the Supreme Court in order to effectuate it.  When did that become something about which "no idea" is legitimate excuse for accepting the treason?  How is that different than the Republican'ts who cared only about winning, not about the rule of law?

                    A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

                    by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 11:02:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  cognitive dissonance (none / 0)

              During Vietnam, the American people learned about the war from news sources whose motivivation was to tell the truth despite HR Haldeman's and Nixon's best efforts to silence the press. Walter Cronkite, Hunter and Brinkley, etc were guys everyone could trust.

              If anything, journalists' bias was against power and anyone who holds power. Isn't that exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind?

              Today, much of America gets its "news" solely from sources that agree with those currently in power. So yeah, they'll vote to keep the government going forward because the information they get says that the war is going well, and that the war is protecting them from Boogeymen. There's no cognitive dissonance because they discount the truth that we see as political blather.

              by grover on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Grover, you are a good guy (none / 0)

                  and your heart is in the right place.  But the notion that the  bias driving Vietnam journalism was "to tell the truth" totally mistakes coverage before say 1969 and subsequently.  A few battle-field correspondants were trying to report the news but much as now most were just echoing the Westmoreland/Pentagon take.  Life in Saigon was cake: air-conditioning, Scotch, hookers.  Life actually reporting in the field sucked: heat, hooches, incoming rounds.  And until at least Tet most of our reporting was coming from the well-conditioned Press Lounge of some hotel in Saigon.

                Pollkatz: Bush Approval

                by Bruce Webb on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:12:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Bushit's own father was and is against (none / 1)

        this war.

        And if Bushit ever finally decides to face himself and what he's done, he'll be forced to conclude that his "whimpy" father was correct.

        Hussein was a bad guy.  But he was also stablity for Iraq and the immediate region.

        An irony that stability now relies on Iran, and even at that it's iffy.

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:55:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  very true (none / 1)

        Domino theory aside, Vietnam had the strategic importance of fuck all.

        Pissing off all the people where the oil is, well, that's going to make our lives a bit more difficult.

        I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

        by agrajag on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:46:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Northern Ireland... (none / 0)

      Bush Jr. created his very own 600 years religiously fuled war.

      Stay the Course will be their epitaph

      by lawnorder on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:59:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Need maps and pictures (4.00 / 4)

    Showing the growth of hostile areas in Iraq & Afghanistan under Bush. These are safe havens for terrorists. People need to see where Bush lost control to terrorists and is impotent to take these areas back.

    by Maynard G Krebs on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:27:46 PM PDT

    •  Agreed.. (none / 0)

      I'd like a nice pretty picture to show the next Repub that tells me invading Iraq made us safer.

      "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values" - Bill Clinton.

      by RAST on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:33:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I only disagree with your calling Iraqi areas (4.00 / 8)

      occupied by 'terrorists'. I agree, this is a good talking point to say to criticize Bush, but I sure hope you don't believe that the fighters in Iraq are 'terrorists'. When you say 'terrorists', you sort of equate them with the 9/11 hijackers, who were terrorists. the people in iraq are defending their land against an occupier, plain and simple. Our country would do the same thing.

      by Mike from NJ on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. And exactly what I means by not (none / 0)

        conceding even the least of facts.

        (That isn't of course a "least of" fact: its the core reality.  And wholly predictable in terms not only of Viet Nam but also of the nature of sovereign peoples and nations.  None on the planet will passively accept occupation of their country.)

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:58:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He is right (none / 0)

        in that they are safe havens for terrorists, to the extent that Al Qaeda has a free hand to set up shop in the area.

        Certainly the vast majority of fighters are natives, but it is worth noting that we've created large areas in which the terrorist element has free reign and public support.

        I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

        by agrajag on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:53:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Insurgents and terrorists (none / 0)

        What the other guy said - al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war, but they sure are now.  There's an growing insurgency in Iraq, and more and more honest-to-god terrorists are filtering into the mix.

        by Bobo62 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:49:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (none / 0)

        kind of like Bush & Putin calling the situation involving the Chechnens "international terrorismm". That's a civil war that's been going on for decades. They're using terrorist tactics (attacking civilians), but that's not internation terrorism by any means(even if there was one or two middle-eastern men in the group).

        Calling it "international terrorism" is just another way to make Americans afraid to send their kids to school unless they vote for Cheney, oh, sorry, I mean Bushie.

        And my compliments to the alleged mainstream TV outlets (Deborah Norville, especially) for pandering to pandering to parents' fears and running all those hour-long "can you safely send your children to school?" programs last week. Classy.

        Ok, I'm coming in off my tangent now...

        by grover on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:39:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Email the media. (none / 1)

    Tell them you want to hear more about Iraq on the news. Don't make it partisan, just tell them they need to cover it more.

    by ZoBai on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:29:02 PM PDT

    •  More specifically: report what is actually (none / 0)

      going on on the ground.  (Not what Bushit says, which by now ain't news except as it's false: "We are winning.")

      A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

      by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:00:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Forged picture? (none / 0)

    You linked to CBS News. That must mean the photo in the corner was forged.  And the number of attacks is forged too.

    by Elrod on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:32:39 PM PDT

  •  A little made parallel (4.00 / 2)

    Even more than Vietnam, the Excellent Iraq Adventure keeps making me think of the hornet's nest we blundered into around the turn of last century with regard to our equally ill-conceived colonial adventure in the Philippines.

    President McKinley confessed then he couldn't find the place on a map if he had to.  Bush would never admit such a thing, but you know he has no clue where Iraq even is.

    Also, McKinley was roundly ridiculed by the press for making such an asinine statement.  Today, Bush would be held up as a model of the American "average Joe"

    "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

    by Raybin on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:35:15 PM PDT

    •  McCinley is Rove's hero. (none / 0)

      Rove's folly: imagining himself a genius, and wanting to prove himself different than everyone else, he choses a relatively obscure president who was an idot.

      But as is typical for those who live on other's credit card, we pay the bill now and later.

      Why does Rove hate America?

      A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

      by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:24:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Is SO Bad It's Going To (4.00 / 4)

    make Vietnam look good.  I keep wondering how they keep just saying "As soon as...." happens it's all going to get better.

    That's just shit and they KNOW it.  US tropps are for the most part, hunkered down in fortresses just to keep casualties number down and even that's not working.

    Our great coalition partner,  Italy's Berlusconi is flatly refusing to even talk about Iraq.  Nothing.  He won't say a word so what does that tell you?  That somehow it's all gonna get better?

    The Turks are threatening and the Iranians are arming and doing military exercises on their borders.

    The US is demanding that NATO train Iraqis in as shrill as way as they can.  Sounds one hell of a lot more like and SOS.

    And that stupid asshat Cheney says if we don't elcect the Chimp they will attack us?  If he believes that he is seriously delutional. It sounds like "Bring it on." to me.  

    This is going to end very badly.  Much worse than Vietnam.

    You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

    by mattman on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:35:20 PM PDT

    •  But that's true: when "whatever it is" (none / 0)

      happens, things will get better.

      Problem is, no one knows what "whatever it is" is, and it isn't going to happen anyway.

      Instead things will get worse.

      A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

      by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:31:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And when China (none / 0)

      let's some of its modern weapons "slip" into Iraq to see how they do against the best America has to offer, and when the Russians let some of their weapons "find their way into Iraq to compete against the Chineese weapons, the shit is really going to get ugly. I might even make the opening phases of the Korean war look good.

      Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

      by Pescadero Bill on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:09:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The issue now is containing (none / 0)

        the spreading instability.  Iraq is almost secondary.

        And now your drag in the paranoias about China and Russia.

        The only solution, and it is slim, is to internationalize the problem.  Bushit destroyed any chance of his doing that.  Only Kerry has a clean slate on this point.

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 11:12:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And when kerry gets elected (none / 0)

    he will be the one who has to get us out of there eventually.  And he will be the one forever saddled with that curse.  We here, and all the journalists with any integrity left, are going to have to document these last years from the truth's point of view -- not the republican's spinning.  

    If it weren't for everything else at stake, not to mention people's lives, I would make him clean up this mess but we cannot afford to have him try to handle this.

    But I do despair some days because without the media at least getting Kerry's speechs and points out there, he is left with spending for ads where Bush just has to get a talking head on T.V. instead of spending money.  Sad.  

    by GrandmaJ on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:35:47 PM PDT

    •  I agree (none / 1)

      Bill Maher (last night on Larry King's show) made a suggestion that I've actually been thinking about for the last few months, as things in Iraq have spiralled out of control.  

      Maybe we should elect Bush and force him to deal with the catastrophe he's created in Iraq.  

      It would be the first time in his life that he himself ever had to clean up a mess he made (see National Guard, Harken Oil, Texas Rangers).

      Frankly, I can't fathom why Kerry or anyone else would want to inherit this no-win foreign policy quagmire. :(

      Then again, Bush would destroy Social Security and Medicare, reinstate the draft and give us a full-blown police state....

      You know, for the first time in my life, I'm glad I'm a geezer.

      by clarkista on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:52:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I've been saying recently (4.00 / 5)

        Retirement to Costa Rica is looking better and better every day.

        William Goldman was right when he said the three rules of Hollywierd are "1) Nobody, 2) knows, 3) anything." Works in the real world, too.

        by HollywierdLiberal on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:11:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unsafe. It not only pulled out of (none / 0)

          Bushit's coalition of the billing, but did so in keeping with its constitution.

          Bushit could handle the first, but the second is obviously the action of an enemy.

          Canada would be safer, but that's next to Alaska, and there's a sip of oil in Alaska.  Bushit attacked Iraq through Kuwait.  So, in view of his method, nothing would prevent him invading Alaska through Canada.

          In addition, Canada refused to join the coalition of the leaving.  And I've heard that Canada has the world's largest supply of whale oil.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:58:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You hit the (none / 0)

        one possible bright spot in the advent of "Coup Redux".

        Bush has wrecked the nation to the extent that whoever inherits this mess will spend the next four years simply trying to fix it. And will recieve the blame for Bush's mistakes. A 400 billion + deficit. A nightmare war its going to be very hard to pull out of with any sense of honor or morality. The handover of the US purse strings to the corporations. A press that is in effect one large Hearstian conglomerate. An upperclass that quite literally doesnt pay taxes. Almost unstoppable commitments to a policy of molding our economic system to multinational interests (outsourcing , "free" trade, the sovereignty of the WTO etc).

        If Kerry wins we'd Better give him at Least the senate to work along side him. He's going to need every bit of help he can get.

        On the positive side if Bush wins and holds congress there is NO way they can lay the blame on democrats again when this country goes to hell in a handbasket (and Bush singlehandedly redeems Hoover as "not so bad.. considering")

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

        by cdreid on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:01:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  US power diminished (none / 1)

          If Bush is reelected the overall power of the US to affect world events will further diminish. That will partly be because the economy has been wrecked by the Iraq adventure along with his economic policies concentrating wealth in the hands of those already rich.  We will have to document that.

          by Pellice on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:14:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One does not savage "honor" (none / 0)

          and "morality" from an illegal war.

          Except as deceits.

          That face-saving deceit was what kept US involvement in Viet Nam going, while Nixon searched for a capstone lie called "peace with honor".

          The only way to pretend one could get "honor" and "morality" out of Abu Grahib would be to pretend it didn't happen.  But as those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, we now have the Iraqnam quagmire, and the tried and failed view that the way out of it is to find the correct formulation of the very same deceit.

          A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

          by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 09:51:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What to do with Bush after he's defeated (none / 0)

        Maybe we should elect Bush and force him to deal with the catastrophe he's created in Iraq.  

        It would be the first time in his life that he himself ever had to clean up a mess he made (see National Guard, Harken Oil, Texas Rangers).

        I have an idea.  The UN should appoint him as interim president of Iraq!  Backed up by a crack contingent of the French Foreign Legion. :)  as well as those wonderfully loyal iraqi the Bush Administration has armed and trained.  forge ties with the locals, President Bush could rely on his staunch ally, Ahmed Chalabi.

        Iraq President Bush would be forced to hold his office until he cleaned up the mess and iraq was a stable, functioning country.

        Local Stores, local schools, local work

        by Menachem Mavet on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:00:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It would be poetic justice, but (none / 0)

        NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!

        Someone is going to need to clean out Bush's mess, and the sooner it is done, the better.

        Besides, some of the other messes that Bush has caused are 2 Trillion dollars of unfunded spending, and environmental disasters waiting to happen.

        His plans include privatizing Social Security, drilling in ANWR and more tax cuts for the wealthy.

        Plus - as many as four Supreme Court justices are likely to retire or die between now and 2008.  I think O'Connor and Renhquist's greatest gift to the American people (even though they helped give us this buffoon) was to postpone their planned retirements until after the election.

        "Nothing carries the spirit of this American idealism more effectively to the far corners of the earth than the American Peace Corps." - John F. Kennedy

        by Khun David on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:30:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry won't be seen in the same historical light (none / 0)

      as Nixon because, with respect to the Vietnam War, the buildup was more gradual:  Kennedy sent in military "advisors," then the main escalation came under Johnson after the concocted Gulf of Tonkin affair.  Nixon was blamed because he promised to get us out of Vietnam when he came into office; it didn't happen until after he was re-elected four years later.

      In this case, Bush is clearly the one culpable since we invaded an unarmed country based on evidence manufactured and distorted by the administration - no one there asked us to drop bombs on them.

      Only if it takes Kerry more than four years to pull us out will he come out of this badly in the historical record.   That is an unlikely scenario given the international support Kerry is likely to receive should he become president.

      I do not suffer fools gladly

      by GreekGirl on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:56:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but it's understandable that it (none / 0)

        took until his second term for Nixon to get us out of Viet Nam.  He got elected the first time on the basis of a secret plan to get us out, and the plan was so secret that it took him until his second term to figure out what it was.

        Think voters are stupid today?  Nixon got elected on the strength of a "secret plan"!  That non-platform substituted for an actual platform.

        Nixon was such a corrupt fuck up.  I wish we had him instead war of Bushit.  At least Nixon was not a full blown professional psychotic war crimes traitor.  He was a piker, and amatuer, a journeyman criminal.  An apprentice.

        Dear ol' Unka Dickhead is beginning to look like someone I would consider voting for.

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:42:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, voters are that stupid today (none / 0)

          That goes without saying.

          by Geotpf on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:53:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Andything that "goes without saying" (none / 0)

            goes without saying.  One simply doesn't say it.  Or one doesn't use that useless phrase.

            And I do not agree that today's voters are stupid, because I don't buy into the "US smart/"THEM stupid" elitism.

            There are many voters, here and at other blogs, who are not stupid.  Another way to say it: there are voters who are not stupid.

            In addition: you have not interviewed your all-inclusive "voters" so have no idea whether they are smart or not.  

            A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

            by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 10:00:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, US involvement in (none / 0)

        Viet Nam began with the end of WW II, when the US under Truman supported the French effort with material and cash.

        And the first to put "advisors" into Viet Nam was Eisenhower, after the French were defeated at Dien Bein Phu.

        JFK inherited an involvement that was already well-established US foreign policy.

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 09:57:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hot potato for everyone (none / 0)

      Nobody knows how to fix the mess-o-potamia. Not Kerry (which explains his silence); certainly not Bush nor Alawi; not Putin with his own plan to seize whatever power wasn't already his in Russia.

      French president Chirac has it right when he said on Monday "we have opened a Pandora's box in Iraq that we are unable to close."

      The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder just nodded. They remained silent.

      The real John McCain. Check it out!

      by ClaudeB on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:26:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's another aspect of how bad things (none / 0)

        are getting: because of Beslan, and aside from his further centralizing power, Putin announced he is the second world leader to climb onto the "premptive strike" Bushwagon.

        A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

        by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:47:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Preemption proliferation (4.00 / 2)

          Israel's done it for years, but being already something of an outcast nation, it had no larger strategic impact.  With the US claiming the right to strike preemptively, now it gains international "legitimacy".  So we hear Putin asserting the right now.  India also has made noises about a right to "pre-emptive self-defense", which were part of the rhetoric in the last Subcontinent Staredown with Pakistan.  In Korea, Dear Leader clearly threatens it 24/7.  The sole superpower claims the right of preemptive attack, and because we're the sole superpower, the legitimacy of the concept can't be challenged.  But making preemptive strikes legitimate for one nation necessarily makes it legitimate for any nation bearing a grudge against a neighbor.

          MA-02

          by Dancing Larry on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:18:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly my point: (none / 0)

            if you can do it, so can we.  (Sharon has been shoving that in Bushit's face.)

            And in view of the fact that you don't dare attack countries which have nukes, we gotta get nukes too.

            A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

            by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:31:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Preemption is simply first strike - nothing new (none / 0)

            I oppose the Bush thesis that "preemption is a new doctrine for a new era."  It is old, old, old as warfare itself, and effective less than half the time.  The way Bush is practicing it, it is simply a first strike to prevent another state from growing powerful enough to threaten the US.  But, it is not a very effective policy, and my instinct says that it works less than half of the time.  Iraq is an example of an ineffective first strike policy, particularly so when the opponent is defined as terrorism.

            We no longer have the power to threaten any state with an invasion - maybe airstrikes, but not an invasion.

            by Pellice on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:46:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  "Body armor is the only thing keeping .... (4.00 / 3)

    ...Iraq from producing Vietnam-type KIA figures."  

    Is there still a shortage of body armor?

    If there is, how about a couple of days of Kossacks raising some dough for body armor and saving some lives?  Just a thought.  

    So does anyone have good info on the current state of body armor?

    "They should be impeached, if for nothing else than a civics lesson..." RFK Jr.

    by jexter on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:44:13 PM PDT

    •  I'm not a medic (none / 0)

      nor do I play one on TV but I recall watching a news item regarding a new medicine applied directly to wounds that would instantly stop bleeding. They said it would greatly reduce the lives lost during combat.

      (I saw this before the war started so my memory might be a bit faulty..)  :)

      GWB will pry my 22 and 19 year old sons from my cold dead fingers.

      by Momagainstthedraft on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:13:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they've had that for years (none / 0)

        its called super glue.  Maybe they have something that goes by a better name but the idea would be the same...it will only work on fairly small puncture wounds that don't produce massive amts of blood.  Any artery wound and you need a medic who can either get you sewn up quick or to a hospital quick.  

        I still use super glue to close small cuts I inflict on myself at work.

        by thebloviator on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:41:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't know... (none / 0)

          what you are talking about.  Yes, what they put on drastic open wounds is a new development.  Something like silica gel, that sucks up moisture and precipitates the protein present in the blood.  This aids clotting and dramatically helps in keeping soldiers with serious laceration wounds from bleeding to death before the medics can save them.

          by hubbubba on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:24:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i didn't say i knew anything other than (none / 1)

            super glue used to be used to treat small wounds.  I  also said that I wasn't sure what else they may have.  Thank you for informing me that there in fact is a silica gel that can be used on large wounds.  If you gave me a name I could go look it up and educate myself on the subject.

            I don't understand where people like you come from.  I made statement that is true.  My grandfather taught me the trick.  My father used the trick.  When I was young do you know what my dad used to clean out my wounds?  Turpentine.  Am I making this up?  Because they have bactine and neosporin now does that mean that there is no way they ever used anything else?  

            Why don't you go ahead and troll rate me because I have access to super glue and not some sort of silica gel that while better and stronger, is either unavailable or unaffordable to me, the guy who uses super glue.

            by thebloviator on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:48:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Uh that's superglue. (none / 0)

            It's a cyanoacrylate compound.  I use it a lot in vterinary surgeries.

            Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

            by Cheez Whiz on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:00:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Collodion (none / 0)

          The traditional method for applying a protective film over a wound employs nitrocellulose dissolved in an appropriate solvent.  In fact, I think you can still get this product under the name "NuSkin" or something of the sort.

          But I guess that the substance mentioned in the previous post doesn't merely staunch bleeding but causes quick clotting and thus prevents it.  I know that fibrin has been employed for hemostasis, for example.  A quick search on "hemostat" or "hemostatic" produced dozens of links and many products:  gelatine "sponge", bovine thrombin topically applied, cellulose, collagen...

          (until I can think of something better)

          by Ernest Tomlinson on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:44:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Re-read (none / 0)

      The body armor is what is keeping the KIA low... not a lack of body armor making the KIA high.

      From what I have read the body armor issue has been resolved (but I may be misremembering that info).

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:57:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These people are certainly delusional. (4.00 / 5)

    Consider that after 30 years about 35 percent still think Vietnam was the right thing to do.  

    We were there for 10 years, some 55,000 dead, countless casualties and just about everyone had post traumatic stress disorder.

    I'm just hoping that people might consider that it is not just a safe little conflict on the other side of the world (this time) that doesn't affect them.  

    This happy little Iraq presidential campaign manuever might be the end of the United States as we know it.  An entire realignment of the Moslem world versus the U.S. with no U.N. no NATO, no European allies to help us.

    by kerry2004 on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:46:59 PM PDT

    •  end of empire (4.00 / 2)

      I've often told my right-wing brother that Bush may very well be launching the end of America's status as superpower.

      The consequences of this fiasco are limitless if it continues to fall of this cliff. It could get SO MUCH WORSE than it is now, and each passing week makes it only more likely.

      sure civil war would be bad, but how about a regional or even world war?? I don't it's that far away.

      All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

      by SeanF on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:06:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's America's Nero (none / 0)

        and instead of fiddling he's running around with firecrackers.

        I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

        by agrajag on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:58:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (none / 0)

          Not quite.  Dubya isn't even Nero.  He's hardly even Cato the Censor.

          BTW: that page is on the best history site on the whole internet.

          It wasn't until the accession of Commodus, son of Marcus Aurelius, that Rome got its first emperor born to the purple, that is, born to a father who was already emperor. That was in 180 AD, or 211 years after Augustus. Since American constitutional history begins in 1789, that would be the equivalent of seeing a major dynastic first in the 2000 election, let's say the first presidential son to be appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court -- not that I'm implying anything.

          -4.25, -6.56

          by fwiffo on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:00:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  post traumatic stress disorder (none / 0)

      Pretty common in WW2 and Korea survivors.

      Earth First!
      <sub>We can strip mine the rest later!

      by wiredog on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:00:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right On (4.00 / 2)

    The consequences of Iraq probably will be worse than Vietnam.  After Vietnam, the dollar could no longer be pegged to gold.  Heaven knows what imperial decline Iraq will visit on us. Maybe the dollar will lose its status as an international currency.

    But we really have seen this sordid dance before and Vietnam is the genetic roadmap that sequences the  hubris, lies and cognitive dissonance -- that in our wierd national character -- that disposes us to debacles like Iraq.  Check out David Halberstrom's, "The Best and the Brightest," Neil Sheehan's, "A Bright Shining Lie," and Frances FitzGerald's, "Fire in the Lake."  

    Vietnam truly was the precursor to Iraq and  the Indochina quagmire demonstrates that imperial waste is a bipartisan endeavor.

    Who will be the last to die for this mistake?

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:49:50 PM PDT

  •  Remember, PsyOps: "Bush's Fumble" (none / 1)

    • It's a big mistake
    • We've dropped the ball on Al Qaeda / UBL
    • AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT
    • (and not Kerry's, when he's elected)
    all accomplished with 2 words.
    substitute them for "Iraq" without explanation in your communications.

    Here's a discussion of the idea among Kossacks in an older diary.

    America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

    by bribri on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:50:22 PM PDT

  •  Irony (3.57 / 7)

    Kerry, who calls Vietnam, "Nixon's War," and not LBJ's war (and Kennedy's), as it should be, will inherit his own mess. If Kerry doesn't embark on a hasty pullout of Iraq when he becomes President on Jan. 20, 2005, and we must bear the burden of more american blood and treasure for a minimum of a few years, he will be just as guilty as Nixon was for pursuing "peace with honor" and the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans for nothing. It will be the duty of all real liberals to oppose Kerry vehemently and through direct action, should he allow young Americans to linger and perish in the sands of Mesopotamia for an unattainable goal. I hope that people like those who post on Kos and many others who were upset with Kerry's pro-war position (virtually all the delegates at the DNC)  will not tolerate him continuing the occupation and the needless sacrifice of the lives of American men and women.
    We should grant Kerry a reprieve now, until he wins the election (which I believe now I will grudgingly support with my vote). However, when the time comes, he needs to feel the heat.

    by Mike from NJ on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 09:51:43 PM PDT

    •  Seems like a conservative argument to me. (none / 1)

      The get out while we can, who cares if we leave a civil war, argument seems conservativee, not liberal.

      Of course, I understand your sentiment that we are probably NEVER going to improve the situation by being there. I'm just terribly afraid that John Kerry get's elected, the "Get Out" sentiment reaches a fever pitch in the U.S., we bail from the whole thing, and the Middle East begins to hemmorhage blood for a generation.

      Again, I understand where you are coming from and you certainly might be right. It just scares the shit out of me.

      by jblumes on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:01:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  our hands are tied (4.00 / 5)

        There is not much anyone can do to prevent this thing from becoming a disaster.  We passed the event horizon for success a long time ago.  Right now, we are stuck in a bullshit situation with no good options.  I hate those fucktard assholes that got us involved in this to the core.  

        ...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance. -- Charles Darwin

        by ScottFanetti on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:12:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We May Have Caused (4.00 / 7)

        a major bleed out of the ME, but the US is not ever going to be able to stop the bleeding now.

        I don't know what the answer is, except to say that the longer we stay, the more lives we waste.
        We are reducing the nation to rubble.  Many tgimes now, when we drop bombs we just bounce the rubble around.

        Today, the blowing out of a power station caused a total blackout in Iraq. I think you could look forever and not find a single Iraqi willing to say our presence there has improved their lives in ANY measure.

        Oh wait.  Allawi, our thugpuppet, might.  Sorry.

        We need to get out now.  There is no other solution.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:15:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depressing and possibly true. (none / 1)

          Whether you are right or not, it's a tragedy of epic proportions.

          Even though I was opposed to the war from the start, I remember getting drunk with my room mates one night a while back, and I bet with them that "Iraq would become a shining glorious democracy in 2 years." After the war started, I was optimistic.

          The wager is still on my fridge and it's been a year so far. I see those words on the door every time I go into the kitchen.

          by jblumes on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:31:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There Is An Old Saying In The ME (4.00 / 2)

            "No man can rule in another man's house."

            Knowing that,  it could have saved a lot of lives had we Americans understood that.  

            You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

            by mattman on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:41:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  start collecting your pennies (none / 1)

            You're the one who's going to be paying off on that bet.

            That you can still think as you do after 18 months of this says you don't have a clue.

            William Goldman was right when he said the three rules of Hollywierd are "1) Nobody, 2) knows, 3) anything." Works in the real world, too.

            by HollywierdLiberal on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:32:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The difference is that for Nixon it was (none / 1)

              "Peace with Honor" -- which was bullshit.  In this situation it's, "Peace with stability."  It's like Chinese handcuffs: the only way to peace is with stability.  But if we stay the stability continues to deteriorate, wideningly.  But if we leave, stability continues to deteriorate, wideneningly.

              A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

              by jnagarya2 on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:10:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  pretty sure (none / 1)

              he was saying he doesn't think like that, and that the wager on his fridge is a repeated reminder of what a wreck things are.

              Or something like that.

              Just saying, I'm pretty sure the guy has a clue.

              I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

              by agrajag on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:06:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  no more Groundhog Day (none / 1)

            I remember getting drunk with my room mates one night a while back, and I bet with them that "Iraq would become a shining glorious democracy in 2 years."

            You made me think about how we really need to resist our national amnesia. Those of us who've watched the nation embark on these excellent adventures before could see only disaster looming ahead in Iraq.  I was a young teenager in the late 60s, and I remember adults asking me what I thought about the war, and I said things like "we've got to finish the job" etc.  I  didn't have a clue.  It wasn't my fault, either.  I was just living it all for the first time, as you might be today.  And of course I was optimistic - all we needed was some energy and some resolve...  qualities geezers tend to lose as they watch the same day dawn again and again...

            But we aren't trapped in the past, really.  We do need energy and resolve, to take our country back, not to pursue prideful follies.  We need to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them.

            It's folding time.

            by pundit on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:08:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do understand (none / 0)

              why my elders are just so angry and cynical once they hit their 70s, about politics.

              by Pellice on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:49:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Angry and cynical"!? (none / 0)

                Try, "Seen it all before."

                The result was predictable.

                The consequences were predictable.

                Now, what do we do in the face of the ignored predictions coming true?

                We can't say in, and we can't pull out.  That ambivalence alone defeats us.  Unfortunately, the ambivalence is material, not theoretical.

                There is no way we can redeem ourselves with the Iraqi people -- think Abu Grahib.  The only option is to internationalize it, then get out.  There is no way Bushit can internationalize it: he has not only rejected our allies, but insulted them.

                The one option is the only option, but slim: internationalizating it, then getting out.  Only Kerry has the ability and likelihood of succeeding at getting it internationalized.

                The last two paragraphs are sufficient reason to boot Bushit's War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory.

                A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on -- Mark Twain

                by jnagarya2 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 10:36:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Get out now, save a few lives (4.00 / 4)

        The get out while we can, who cares if we leave a civil war, argument seems conservativee, not liberal.

        Of course, I understand your sentiment that we are probably NEVER going to improve the situation by being there. I'm just terribly afraid that John Kerry get's elected, the "Get Out" sentiment reaches a fever pitch in the U.S., we bail from the whole thing, and the Middle East begins to hemmorhage blood for a generation.

        Again, I understand where you are coming from and you certainly might be right. It just scares the shit out of me.

        What scares the shit out of you? The prospect of tens of thousands of American deaths, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a direct result of a continued American presence, or packing up and leaving? Because if you acknowledge that the former is the probable outcome of staying, as I think you allude to, then not advocating the latter is stupidity cubed. If nothing can be done to fix Iraq, staying and creating further carnage is neither a liberal, or conservative argument, it's an immoral one. On this issue I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan and the libertarians far more often then I do John Kerry.

        by Robert Drake on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 10:41:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When will politicians learn? (4.00 / 4)

          "If nothing can be done to fix Iraq, staying and creating further carnage is neither a liberal, or conservative argument, it's an immoral one."

          Totally agreed. I would add that our very presence in Iraq not only prevents us from fixing the situation, it actually creates the chaos we're trying to prevent. Every move we make there, whether aggressive or passive, pours gasoline on the flames.

          by Thunder on Tue Sep 14, 2004 at 11:09:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  one last try (3.00 / 2)

            I disagree that the only solution is for us to bail. It's true we've painted ourselves into a corner, but there is an opportunity - with a new administration - for us to create international management of the governing of Iraq. This could change the dynamic from USA vs. Islam to "Operation Rebuild Iraq".

            Obviously there are no guarantees, but the stakes are so high that Kerry must try before deciding to abandon ship.

            All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

            by SeanF on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:12:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You think Iraqis will welcome them (none / 0)

              with flowers? At this point adding more occupiers will only spread the pain. If the US had originally moved to elections and the establishment of a credible Iraqi government (Something that Bush never intended to do) it might have been possible to stabilize Iraq. But now any move intiated by the US is rightly viewed as imposing America's will on Iraq. Between the Sunnis and Al-Sadr, there are enough Iraqis who will resist this that no matter the flag of the troops carrying out the occupation the bloodshed will continue unless the US led force opts for annihilating large portions of Iraq's population.

              I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan

              by Lcohen on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:21:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think it's too late for that. (none / 0)

              There are worse and better ways of withdrawing, and it will be Kerry's job to figure out means of mitigation. But staying on, in the vain hope of making everything all right again, is the worst of all the options. Having a new US administration won't un-organize the co