Skip to main content

Glenn Reynolds joins a long list of 101st Fighting Keyboarders who, rather than question the bullshit rationales for war, and rather than question the incompetent waging of the war by this administration, would rather lash out at the "Left" for calling bullshit what it is.

Expect more of this. This war is long past lost. Time to pack it in, and save the lives of our men and women in uniform that will otherwise face a barrage of bullets and RPG rounds during their extended stay in the desert.

In the feverish minds of the war apologists, it doesn't matter that no WMDs were found, that torture chambers are still open for business, that this war is now rivaling Saddam's brutality for sheer number of Iraqis killed, that the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all having trouble recruiting, that our equipment is degrading to the point where we're creating a hollow military, that the war is costing us $200 billion and counting, that Israel is not safer as a  result of this war, that nearly 1,600 allied troops and counting have died on this fool's errand, that the US's original choice to lead Iraq -- Chalabi -- was an Iranian spy who told our enemies that we had cracked their communications code, that most of Iraq is not under government control, that terrorists are now using the lawlessness in Iraq to recruit and train a whole new generation of terrorists, that our "Coalition of the Willing" is now a mere shell of its former self, that the world hates the United States, that the Euro is suddenly the hot currency, that Europe and Asia are both creating security organizations excluding the US, and that tens of thousands of our soldiers are coming home physically and mentally maimed.

None of that matters to them.

But they see the war getting out of hand. They've see our chances of victory go from little to nothing. And they've got to blame someone. Anyone. And of course, it can't be Saint George, because he's perfect and can do no wrong. So blame Kennedy. Blame Boxer. Blame France. Blame Canada. Blame anti-war bloggers. Because it is they who have botched up the Iraqi campaign to the point of no hope. If it wasn't for them, our troops would still be basking in a flood of rose petals.

The faith-based lunatics taking up residence in the White House and the Pentagon have ample ideological company in Tennessee law schools and other hidey holes of the wingnut blogosphere.

But at the end of the day, whether they'll ever admit it or not -- we were right, they were wrong. Reality isn't being too kind to their side.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:18 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Reynolds knows better (3.88)
    He wrote, "When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war..."

    The man is a law professor at the University of Tennessee.

    If he doesn't know the legal definition of treason, he should. Here it is:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." (U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3).

    In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:21:34 PM PST

    •  aoeu (none)
      At what point does he open himself up to having his license revoked?
      •  The best punishment (4.00)
        Would be for Reynolds to become a laughingstock within academia. Maybe a conservative professor who respects both the First Amendment and intellectual consistency will take him to the woodshed.

        In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:30:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't have to have a law licesnse to teach law (none)
        At least when I was at the UT College of Law (1993-1996). I had one professor who had been extensively published on matters of criminal law but - after graduating from law school (Alabama, I think) and clerking for a (federal?) judge somewhere - had never taken a bar exam and so therefore never practiced that upon which he opined. So Reynolds no longer may have one to revoke.

        However, if you feel lucky, try:

        Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

        The Oaks Tower, Suite 730
        1101 Kermit Drive
        Nashville, TN 37217

        Ph: 615/361-7500
        Ph: 800/486-5714

        Better yet, try the president of the University:

        Dr. John Peterson
        800 Andy Holt Tower
        Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0180

        Phone: 865-974-2241
        Fax: 865-974-3753

        or

        John C. Galligan, Jr.
        Dean
        The University of Tennessee College of Law
        Suite 278
        1505 W. Cumberland Ave.
        Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1810

        Phone: 865-974-2521
        Fax: 865-974-6595

        Never did take Reynolds for Con. Law (or space law, which seems to be his legal academic niche). I certainly didn't miss anything.

    •  Could (4.00)
      Bush's actions be considered giving aid/comfort to the enemy in the sense that he is greatly weakening our country's financial position and wasting our military?

      I guess it's a stretch, but I really believe bushco is destroying our country.

      •  Myth: Bush is strong (4.00)
        You know, during the campaign and even now, right wingers talk about how tough Bush was for taking down Saddam. What they are implying is that Saddam was a huge threat who had to be dealt with.

        The left thinks Saddam was a paper tiger, a has-been whose supposed might was all for show.

        What is the "tougher" position?  The guy who think a disarmed Saddam is really scary, or the guy who thinks a disarmed Saddam is a pathetic blowhard?

        I think we hold the tougher position. We want to deal with the real problems in the world, Bin Laden and North Korea, while Bush is out there chasing a has-been dictator whose best days were 15 years ago.

        There is nothing "tough" about invading two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) with gutted armies. Any country you can conquer in one month is not a real threat, I'm sorry.

        •  Re: (4.00)
          You assume that the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons that have anything to do with national security and protecting the US citizenry.  Both countries, but particularly Iraq, were invaded strictly as a matter of political and economic profit.  3000 US citizens dead in a terrorist attack?  They don't care, we could lose 3 million and they wouldn't blink as long as their corporate profits and their political fortunes were on the rise.
          •  You misread me (none)
            I did not imply that we invaded Iraq because of national security -- but instead that that was the rationale given, and the rationale that the Republicans continue to use today. What I'm saying is that even if we accept that as the real motive, it shows what kind of scaredy-cats the right wingers are. Iraq was a broken down country with an army that was a shell of its former self. Beating it up doesn't prove how tough we are.

            The Republicans who viewed Saddam as a threat, they are the equivalent of a man being scared of a 70-year-old neighbor who was once a boxer during his prime.

            As far as Afghanistan, I supported that war as a response to the attack on 9/11, but I thought it was handled in an incompetent fashion. We should have sent 100,000 troops to Afghanistan within a month of 9/11, to capture Bin Laden and snuff out Al Qaeda while they were centralized in one place. Instead Bush sent a few thousand troops, allowed Bin Laden to escape, and allowed Al Qaeda to spread around the globe.

            The incompetence with which these wars have been executed is matched only by the false bravado of those running the show.  They act like taking over Iraq and Afghanistan is a major accomplishment, when the real goal of stopping real threats has been left unaccomplished.

        •  They're in the myth and slogan business (none)
          How much is the Bush administration spending on the "election" in Iraq?  Have any serious figures been compiled?  

          Please tell me where I can find such information...this veteran wants to know.  

          Because none of the hype around the "election" has mentioned money, there isn't anything to bring the high-flown morality play back to earth, in the eyes of the public.  

          I wouldn't expect the Bushies to confess how much is being spent, but it's a further indictment of the press in this country that working journalists aren't asking questions or making observations.

          What have you done today to take Bush and the Bushies down?

          by JTML on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:37:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  High Crimes & Misdemeanors (4.00)
        "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

        Abuse of power and serious misconduct are high crimes and misdemeanors.

        •  HC&M (none)
          Are anything the House returns a bill of impeachment against.  If they charge "He picked his nose and ate it" and the Senate convicts, viola- that must've been a HCorM.
          Anyway, keep reading and you'll see that you can't try and convict for the bases of impeachment.  I want justice so bad I'll wait, TYVM.

          Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

          by Myrkury on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:48:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (none)
        Bushco (nice label) doesn't think about enemies, allies, and so forth in the standard scenarios.  Iraq went from an ally to an enemy simply because the neocons needed an enemy to go after in order to save the first Bush presidency.  This administration sees the world in a corporate light.  China, for example, is a putative ally because it is the source of potential profit.  Iraq is a playground for corporate profiteering and free-market gamesmanship without any strictures of law or custom, therefore the situation in Iraq is perfectly acceptable.  The old paradigms don't apply any longer, at least not to this crowd.
        •  Bush's moment of truth (none)
          Bush slipped in a interview and actually called the US a corporation instead of a country.  He caught the slip and corrected himself.  

          I saw the interview, so I don't have a link but it was a telling moment.

    •  you make an unwarranted assumption (4.00)
      you right of Reynolds "The man is a law professor at the University of Tennessee. "

      Might i remind you that John Yoo, who is really the principal authro of the memo issued by Jay Bybee that justified torture, is a law professor at UC Berkely.  That nViet Dinh, principal author of Patriot Act I and proponent {and author?] of the propsoed Patriot Act II is also a law professor, I think now at Georgetown.

      That Robert Bork spent years as a law professor at Yale.

      That the Federalist Society is full of law professors.

      Expecting that the status of being a law professor means that one is willing to abide by the Constitution and understand legal precedent is about the same as expecting that our elected public officials will abide by their constitutional oaths.  Oh, I forgot, we have many elected public officials who were law school professors -- and gee, that included Bill Clinotn, didn't it?

      Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:28:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You mean (none)
        it's Clintons fault too?

        "No matter what they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante."
        -Charles Pierce

        by baba durag on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:34:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault! (4.00)
          Blowjobs are singlehandedly responsible for the lives of soldiers being lost today.

          Didn't you know that? Duh! Why don't you love America?

          [/freeper]

          •  Did you ever wonder why Democratic marriages (4.00)
            are so much more successful?  We follow our leader's examples.  Everyone has fun and we're too busy to ruin the country.

            Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. H.L. Mencken

            by Seoduwyn on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:58:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  oh come on (4.00)
          although I always found it interesting that Clinton got a job as a law school professor right out of Yale Law.  I'm just pointing out that many public officials have taught law school.

          For what it is worth, I enver felt that Clinton was in any way guided by his knowledge of the law, except in the narrowest of senses.  When he made his comments about what the meaning of "is" was, he was doing the questioner's job for him.  But show me some evidence that the man who tuaght Constitutional Law at Arkansas relied upon that in his public policy decisions.

          Bill Clinton may have been the msot gifted politician of my lifetime (I'm 58), but I am not great fan -- his unwillingness to spend political capital meant that he failed to achieve much of what he could avhe, instead we got incrementalism.  And he was so much for himself that in the process he did great damage to the Democratic party.

          Of course, I do need to note that I consider myself an independent  -- I wrote extensively on this yesterday, January 28, on my own blog (forgive all the typos there -- I will eventually fix).  

          So no, I am not blaming the Big Dog.  And I think you knew that.  I am saying that because one is or ha been a law school professor is no guarantee of anything -- n ot even that they themselves are graduates of law schools!!!

          Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

          by teacherken on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:46:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hard for me to figure (none)
            how you could lump Clinton in with those others.  It wasn't clear at all in your other post.

            And I don't think law school is required for people to be law breakers.

            "No matter what they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante."
            -Charles Pierce

            by baba durag on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:55:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the law thurmaturgists... (none)
              fakirs, and alchemists are great to have around when you are in the process of doing things in the gray areas.

              And in Bush's case, the administration has a cabal of high priests juris doktors working on every single one of his "gray area" efforts, on all fronts, continously.

              "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

              by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:48:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I Know This Is Hard, But... (none)
            the lawyers who took Clinton's deposition that was one of the subjects of his impeachment and sanctimoneous castigation for "lying under oath", defined sex in such a way that it technically excluded a BJ, unless Clinton was feeling-up Monica at the same time.

            Clinton was thus not necessarily lying when he denied having sex with Monica at his deposition, even though he got BJs from her. That he was being so technical in his answers was enough cause to whip him for many, but I can understand such a response in a civil deposition where lawyers that are suing you are digging through your sexual past. That it can be cause for impeachment still strikes me as odd.
             

            Iraq is deja vu all over again.

            by chuco35 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:49:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  HAS BILL (none)
              got his license to practice law in the state of Arkansas back yet?  Paula Jones is having a good time on taxpayers 1/2 million thanks to Billary
            •  Your point is well taken, (none)
              I think and I'd like to add that our legal system is such that a person's right to remain silent only comes into effect when a person is charged with a crime.  In a civil suit where there is no chance that a person will be incarcerated or worse, there is no right to remain silent.  In fact, the failure to respond or answer the accusation results in an automatic judgement for the plaintiff--i.e. the plaintiff wins if the defendant doesn't fight back.
              What happened with Clinton is that he finally had to respond and when he answered the charge (question) he tried to give as little information as possible without lying and opening himself up to a charge of perjury.  
              Under our system, the only time people have to tell the  truth is when they have taken an oath to do so.  Which is why there were no oaths taken before the 9/11 Commission.
              No question these people know the law.
      •  Chapman (none)
        Hugh Hewitt is a "law professor" at my alma mater.

        On a totally unrelated note, I keep putting the checkbook away untouched every time I ponder giving them some money.

    •  Dish it out, but they can't take it. (3.88)
      Gopers attacked Clinton, with Soldiers in the field, during the 78 days of Kosovo.

      Gopers attacked Clinton, after he dropped 75 Cruise Missiles on Bin Laden, after the African Embassy bombings - they even said it was a trumpeted up/fake event to distract people from impeachment.

      Gopers did the same thing again, 5 months later, when Clinton bombed Iraq, during Operation Desert Fox.

      And come on, Gopers attacked LBJ during Viet Nam, and Carter during Iran-Hostage.

      These people really are thin-skinned Girlie Men - They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

  •  You forgot Bubba (none)
    It's all his fault.  And the wife of course.
  •  An anti-Bush bias... (3.50)
    ...by the facts.

    Too bad the neo-con possé won't recognize them at the door!

  •  Ya hear that, Glenn? (3.77)
    WE WERE RIGHT.

    YOU WERE FUCKING WRONG.

    Lets try that again.

    WE WERE RIGHT.

    YOU WERE FUCKING WRONG.

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:24:20 PM PST

    •  ...give me a break (1.14)
      talk about childish.
      •  He's repeating Kos (none)
        who is repeating Carville. It's deadly accurate. It's not childish.
      •  not at all (none)
        (...although this doesn't deserve a troll rating...)

        There are hard lessons which America needs to learn from this debacle, and step number one to learning them is to realize that, contrary to the proclamations of so many on the right, it simply is not true that no one saw this coming.  

        We saw it coming.  And we said so, very loudly, at the time.  We need to drive this point home, so that maybe next time this country will listen to reason, and avoid the disaster which this war has become.

        "How good bad reasons and bad music sound when we march against an enemy." ~Friedrich Nietzsche

        by sumitsu on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:10:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a lawyer. (3.66)
      I live in Tennessee.  

      Sometimes my work takes me by Knoxville.

      One time, right after it became clear that no WMD were to be found in Iraq, I stopped in at the law school and knocked on his office door.  He wasn't in, so I slipped a note under his door.

      It said, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction [that you insisted would be in Iraq if we invaded]?"

      Clearly, what I wrote didn't get through to the fucking southern, cracker son-of-bitch.

      He is a pure dishonest asshole.  He has NO INTELLECTUAL integrity.

      •  Southen crackers (none)
        I've met some Southern crackers who would put your progressivity to shame.
        •  What does that (none)
          have to do with this post?

          Exsqueeze me, but really now, so what if you can?  What relevance does this have to what I've just said?

          Or is it that you yourself are a "southern cracker" and just can't stand the use of that term in denigrating certain people from the South?

          Notice, doofus, that I didn't say that all southerners are "crackers."  Why interpret my post as a dissing of all white southerners?

          Your inferiority complex kicking in?

        •  As a born and bred southerner (none)
          I give progressive the right to call that talentless hack a lying cracker SOB.

          The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

          by cdreid on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:44:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  ...cracker son-of-bitch...pure dishonest asshole.. (none)
        That sums it up nicely.

        But let's give this turd his rightful due: he's a  genius with a mixing board. Pathetic.

        --

        Moral: Give a dishonest asshole a big microphone or a job at a school, and he's still just a dishonest asshole.

        •  Perhaps the Administration... (none)
          also has Glenn on journo-payola, too.

          Would fit in with the whole Tennessee music thing.

          Rove: Say there, Glenn, would you mind mixing down these tracks of bomb explosions and screams of Iraqi innocents into one of Defenders of the Faith rockabilly tunes? You could call it "Symphony of Death 2003-2???".

          Glenn Reynolds: voted likely to have done the studio work for Bob Roberts.

          "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

          by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:17:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Hold Back.... (none)
        .....Tell us how you REALLY feel about him!  :o)

        </snark>

        When the PEOPLE lead, the LEADERS follow!

        by mlkisler on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:53:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Need more proof? (none)
    From Yahoo

    This is not the work of a few thugs coming out of the woodwork.  That is just too illogical.  This election will do nothing to stop this kind of massive threat, IMO!

    U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Hit; Two Killed

    45 minutes ago   Middle East - AP

    By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents hit the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad with a rocket Saturday, killing two Americans. Militants also set off explosions that killed eight Iraqis and a U.S. soldier and blasted polling places across the country Saturday as Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government urged Iraqis to overcome their fear of violence and vote in landmark elections.

    AP Photo

    AFP  
     Slideshow: Iraq

    Latest headlines:  
    · US embassy hit by deadly strike on eve of Iraq election
    AFP - 4 minutes ago  
    · Procedures for Voting in Iraqi Election
    AP - 5 minutes ago  
    · Rocket Kills 2 at U.S. Embassy on Eve of Iraq Vote
    Reuters - 16 minutes ago  
    Special Coverage  

    The strike in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone was a dramatic sign of guerrillas' ability to hit at the heart of power in Iraq (news - web sites) even as the U.S. and Iraqi militaries took some of their strictest security measures ever for the election, imposing a strict lockdown in the capital and large parts of the country


    Political censorship is the root of all evil! It is the antithesis to a functional democracy!!

    by truthbetold on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:24:58 PM PST

  •  He said this about Kos (none)
    ...Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is "screw 'em," well, this is the authentic face of the Left...

    Reynolds is an ass.

    I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:25:41 PM PST

    •  aoeu (4.00)
      Why are you such a self hater?  Don't compare Reynolds to your butt.
    •  Reynolds left out the one word (4.00)
      which would protect him from a libel suit, were Kos not effectively a public figure  -- had he said some  American casualties, he would be okay, since the casualties in question, the mercs, were Americans.  As written, his statement implies that kos feels that way about ALL American casualties, including those of servicement there by no choice of their own. Since the front page story in question made precisely the opposite point, Reynolds remarks are defamatory on their frace.  But since Markos is effectively a public figure it would be hard to recover any damages  -- you woudl have to show reckless disregard for the truth, that Reynolds was making a statement that he knew to be false.  His defense would be that it was political speech, which is hgihly protected,that the fact that some Democrats pulled thier advertising from this site is proof that his interpretation of the intent of kos's remarks is not out of line.

      BTW, I wonder if one or more of lawyer participants would anser the following questions, which ahs been bugging me  -- does our participation in a public forum such as this raise all of us to the status of public figures when it comes to defamation cases?  I would think that it might, especially for any of us who either (a) directly identify ourselves, or (b), like I ahve done, give sufficient information to make determining our real identity a rather simple task.

      Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:34:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Problem: Unkind reality (3.66)
    Solution I: Invent a new reality that we can all look forward to with pride and hope.

    A victorious reality in which the fires of freedom burn fiercely, etc.

    Solution II: Denounce same-sex affinities in children's cartoons.

  •  no matter what (3.50)
    i like to think that no matter what happens, if nothing else, history will not be kind to this administration.
    •  That's why historians are on the hit list (4.00)
      That's if there are historians free to write about it.

      There will always be idiot academics (doesn't the name "instapundit" sound like self-parody?) but one of the real targets for the next four years will be academia and tenure. The efforts at cowing academics at the war's start are nothing compared to what's coming -- and on the subject of Reynolds, I wonder if it is just chance that his school Tennessee at Knoxville was one of the three schools that were profiled in "Brainwashing 101" -- part of the right-wing assault?

      •  Hit lists (none)
        and of course you're all aware of the growing number of hit lists on college websites identifying those profs such as historians who are "too liberal"?  So far, they're student-run only.  I think.

        "No. I'm pretty fuckin' far from OK."

        by moltar on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:33:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  History doesn't matter (none)
      Because we'll all be dead then. So sayeth our Dear Leader.

      And Dear Leader's wife, umm, err, ahhh, secretary, thinks that history is coming real soon.  As in "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States", with references to ongoing terrorist preparations, as well as events taking place within the preceeding few months, is historical.  

      To sum up: we'll be dead when history gets here, and history has a very short time frame of reference. Ain't that a pretty picture!

      He has oil. He tried to kill my daddy.

      by kensa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:44:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think history (none)
      will remember Iraq as the biggest foreign policy disaster, ever.

      I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:33:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  up to us (none)
      He who controls the past, controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past.

      What kind of shit is that? Orwellian in fact.

  •  Logic (3.50)
    It's all our fault because we didn't stop them.
  •  These people ... (3.80)
    They're insane. They seem to be suffering some kind of group psychosis or hypnosis.

    Maybe they're brainwashed. Maybe we as a society have finally managed to make sociopathy the norm.

    I don't know. All I know is I am sick of them, I am sick of the havoc and devastation they've caused for how many people? I am sick of their absurd rhetoric. I am sick of how they've hijacked this country.

    They're the Anti-Christ they accuse all others of being.

    •  Maybe (3.66)
      They're insane. They seem to be suffering some kind of group psychosis or hypnosis.

      Maybe they're brainwashed. Maybe we as a society have finally managed to make sociopathy the norm.

      But it is just like Vietnam, exactly the same kind of stuff. When the failures became more and more obvious there were still people shouting treason and traitor when others pointed out the failures.

      Maybe bush just thought that since the lessons of Vietnam were fading in the minds of the people who went through the era and others were not alive it would be a good idea to bring the lessons back to life.

      •  Yes (3.66)
        It IS just like Vietnam, which makes it even more insane to me.

        You know, aside from the sheer amorality/immorality of the whole thing, its wrecklessness and arrogance, it's unbelievable to me they really believed they're so superhuman that they could pull this off.

        Oh that's right --- they ARE superhuman in their own minds. Reality doesn't matter.

        Sickoes.

        •  I don't think they ever thought (4.00)
          About anything but their 'vision' thing.

          It's like having a vision of making a beautiful garden, and getting the community excited about it.   Everyone donates a bit, but the mayor and his cronies don't give a thought to soil preparation, or what seeds will grow where, in what climate.
           Then they raise taxes to pay for the  "Blooming of Democracy Garden," and who's going to be against that, right?  But it gets more expensive. People have to be drafted to plow the land and haul in the water.  Some people who actually have ever made a garden before say, "This is completely unwise.  Whoever planned this should be fired. Why, we don't even have a source of water nearby, how do we expect anything to grow?"  

          These people are not listened to because everyone has so much time and sweat and money and even blood invested in the damn 'garden' that they can't bear to think it's all been a waste, a Godawful waste.  

          •  I understand the analogy ... (none)
            ... except I would make some alterations.

            They wanted a garden, but the garden they wanted belonged to someone else. So they invented a vision to justify taking the garden by force --- and destroying it in the process.

            •  Destroying the garden (4.00)
              That reminds me of a famous (well, in Canada, at least, being a National Film Board production) short subject from the 1950's called "Neighbors".  It's a stop-motion animated film featuring live actors in an increasingly violent tale of two neighbors claiming ownership of a flower that sprouted in the border of their properties.  I believe it won the 1952 Academy Award for Best Short Documentary. When I was growing up, the film was commonly shown in classrooms.

              The lesson here is of two parties fighting over something they both want, and ultimately destroying it to the detriment of all.  

              He has oil. He tried to kill my daddy.

              by kensa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:19:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Alterations gladly accepted (none)
              What made me think of a garden was the grade school I went to in New Mexico. Big dusty rocky playground.  The school planted saplings along one side, and one of the punishments for misbehaving was to stay after school and carry bucket after bucket of water all up and down the long line of little trees, watering them.
      •  Re: (none)
        What lessons exactly did Bush and the other chickenhawks in this administration learn from Vietnam?  That war is fun as long as you don't have to fight it?  That war is mighty profitable as long as it isn't your overprivileged ass that's on the line helping churn out profits for the defense corporations?  That sucking down brewskis, chasing Alabama girls, trashing rental houses, and snorting coke in the bathroom of your Guard barracks sure beats the hell out of actually going overseas and doing battle with the "enemy?"

        Notice that the advice that came from those with a real military background (excluding Rumsfeld, whose military experience was strictly peacetime) was roundly ignored?  Instead we get a war directed by people like Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rice, whose total combat experience is zilch and whose military experience is virtually nil.  Their lack of experience is only matched by their lack of caring for the military and for the security of the country they pretend to represent.

        •  What they learned from Vietnam: (none)
          They learned that Vietnam was a just war that could, should, would have been won if only libruls like Jane Fonda and John Kerry hadn't stabbed our troops in the back by opposing the war.  They've spent the last thirty years nursing this ridiculous fantasy, and Iraq is their chance to win, win, win at last!

          Also, real dumb-asses like Ann Coulter learned that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Duhhhhhhh.

          "I describe myself as a museum-quality tax-and-spend bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberal." -- Garrison Keillor

          by greenknight on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:55:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (none)
            I'm wondering why I should even respond to this.  The sheer uninformed idiocy of the post is almost beyond belief.  How much effort should I expend in ripping this to shreds?

            The conjunction between Kerry and Fonda is specious at best.  There is no connection between the two.  Anti-war people can debate all day about the motives and effectiveness of Jane Fonda's actions during the war; personally, I think she went way over the line in her apparent collusion with the North Vietnamese, but I also think she did so out of idealism, with no intent to "betray" her country.  Kerry is a completely different matter.  His stance against the war was principled, measured, and based on first-hand experience and knowledge.  Trying to paint Kerry as "Hanoi John" is slanderous.  So lose it.

            Far from opposing our troops, those of us who are against the Iraq occupation are the ones who support our troops.  It is conservatives like you who want to throw our soldiers into the meat grinder and sacrifice their lives, their health, and their families' future happiness for your own twisted ends.  Iraq has nothing to do with making this country safe from terrorism.  It has everything to do with keeping Bush and his fellow neocons in power, and establishing US dominion in the Middle East.

            Hitler sacrificed hundreds of thousands of German troops for his own twisted, self-serving goals.  Bush is doing much the same.  Since you obviously support the Iraq occupation, that puts you on the side of the 21st century fascists.

            When the Ashcroftians open up the American version of Auschwitz, I assume you'll be first in line to apply for a job as camp guard and gas-chamber operator.

    •  It's simple, they're obsessed with winning (none)
      And their afraid of people losing faith in our ability to win. In their warped view of things, our ability to win is directly related to public support, so its justified to assasinate the character of any dissentor.

      This is proof that reality should always come before faith, for the sake of mankind.

      Truth doesn't take sides

      by KingJames on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:35:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nailed it. (4.00)
      Maybe we as a society have finally managed to make sociopathy the norm.

      It occured to me the other day that Maximum Leader is a true sociopath.  He fits the DSM-IV criteria, and this more detailed description:

      Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality.  They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars.  Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions.   The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behavior.  This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behavior and often takes the form of domestic violence.  Along with these other actions, sociopaths often engage in self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or addiction to drugs.  This, of course, usually worsens many aspects of the sociopathic behavior.  Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected.  They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency.  It is these qualities that sometimes place the sociopath in leadership positions within their social groups and often make it hard to spot their "black side".

      All Spin Zone : Nailing the Lying Bastards Since 2004

      by Richard Cranium on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:48:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are suffering from the Bush disease: (none)
      cannot tell the truth
      cannot say you were wrong
      do not know right from wrong
      money is the only thing that makes their world go around
      have no consciense what-so-ever
      will never pay any price for their wars - will only let other people get killed (no Bush or Cheney relatives will ever be near Iraq fighting this war)
      will espouse any view to get votes: religion, morality (of course they do not believe any of it themselves) because after the election -- no gay marriage amendment etc.

      So do not expect them to fess up -- it is not in their dna - they truly are a sick bunch.

      SpongeBush SquarePants: SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he! - - Maureen Dowd

      by sara seattle on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:27:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Denial, she be a powerful temptress (none)
      The human mind blocks what it can not place in its safe reality frame.  It's like assembling furniture, the parts you can't figure out a way to make work get dumped.  
    •  To me (none)
      it's a sign of desperation.  They are getting more and more illogical in their arguments.  Something has to break eventually.

      I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:36:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A suggested editorial remark for Kos (none)
    Your write of the "other hidey holes of the wingnut blogosphere."  Should we change that to the "other pider holes of the wingnut blogosphere" in honor of their prediction that the capture of Saddam would be the turning point?
  •  Bushco will never get more support than it's had (4.00)
    This Republican-controlled congress has given this Republican president everything he has asked for to conduct this invasion and occupation.  Every dollar.    Very little criticism.  Every vote has gone Bushco's way, with or without Democrats.

    The media has ranged from supportive to wildly supportive.

    Bush stated that he's given the armed forces everything they've requested.

    True, Bushco had little international support.  But he said he didn't need it.

    So what's the problem?

    Don't let conservatives get away with claiming they didn't have enough support.  They've had all the support any president is likely to get in such a situation.  

    It wasn't enough.  And that is due to their poor judgement.

    My Liberal Values: a clean earth, universal access to health care, human and civil rights, a broader distribution of wealth, and a global perspective

    by Pellice on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:31:37 PM PST

    •  disagree (none)
      there are now Republicans in Congress rasing real questions.  After all,some of them do go to funerals, and they take the calls when their town or state has a Guard unit that suffers mulitple casualties.  

      I do NOT think Bush has a blank check for Iraq from the Republicans in Congress.  If the elections turn out to be a disaster, you may see a lot more voices speaking out.

      After all, the challenges to Johnson started within the Democrats  -- both votes against the Tonkin Gulf resolution, Morse and Gruening, were Democrats.

      Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:37:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Too little, too late (none)
        They have no credibility with me if they start saying that now, after the election.  This clusterfuck was clear before November.

        I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:40:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then vs. now (none)
        I think that Pellice's point is that up until very very recently, Bush had a blank check from Republicans.  The fact that some of them are starting to regret that doesn't change what they did in his first term.
      •  Now, yes. Now that things are falling apart (none)
        so badly that even some Republicans can see the US is in big trouble... now, some of the support is falling away.

        But I still think Pellice is dead-on correct to say the administration has had "all the support any president is likely to get in such a situation."

        Massacre is not a family value.

        by Canadian Reader on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:16:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No More Blank Check (none)
        If Bush even THINKS of asking for backing on invading Iran like he did for Iraq, there will be a chorus of "NO!!" from Congress, along with the American people.  We are broke, we have accomplished nothing, and it is tearing apart this country. No more play hide-and-go-seek with non-existent WMDs.

        Fool me once....won't get fooled again.

    •  When the legitimate paymets to Kos (none)
      came out -- I was outraged as usual about the boldness of Republicans: Let's tell lies no-one but Kos will get hurt.

      BUT -- I would rather have it happen like this -- they try to dish the dirt on Kos, -- gets shot down exposed as nonsense.

      Then the trickling out of information about not one, not two, but now three little GOPers mouth-pieces with God knows how many more to come.

      If it have happened in reverse they would have kept hitting on Kos -- now instead this will be bad news for the GOP Ruling Class for weeks to come -- because there is no way they are going to come clean right away and tell the truth about how many journalist are involved with the GOP.

      The Republicans telling the truth -- are you kidding.

      SpongeBush SquarePants: SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he! - - Maureen Dowd

      by sara seattle on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:17:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  History Will be Conveniently Rewritten (4.00)
      However much support Bush had before he invaded Iraq, and however much it evaporates before the U.S. finally pulls out, we should be very clear that the Glenn Reynolds of the world will engage in a lifetime campaign to deflect any criticism of this grand misadventure.  As with Vietnam, the far right will find plenty of "only if" excuses for what went wrong - the U.S. could have won if it had the guts to invade Syria, or if the leftists hadn't undermined public support for the war, or our "allies" like France hadn't worked actively against us from the start.  

      This campaign will take on the form of mythology, and once again, decades later, the U.S. will find itself embroiled in another messy foreign war because, unlike France, Germany, Japan or any other nation that knows what it is to lose a war on its own soil, the U.S. will ultimately learn nothing from this Iraq disaster.

      •  It took centuries for Europe... (none)
        and complete devastations, to arrive at where they are.

        Perhaps if there had been a couple more civil wars in the United States mainland proper, the mindset and post-modern philosophy with regard to armed conflict might have taken hold.

        But oweing to this nation always requiring an "alien other" to struggle against and the heterogeneousness of this society, one can hold out little hope for such a seachange to occur any time soon.

        "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

        by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:55:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "The problem is (3.75)
    these facts are biased.  The facts are biased against George Bush." - Rob Corddry

    Welcome to reality asshole.

    "No matter what they want the answer is no. Now is not the time to fold, now is the time to up the ante."
    -Charles Pierce

    by baba durag on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:31:45 PM PST

  •  You forgot (none)
    about blaming Clinton.
  •  Is this guy abusing university resources? (none)
    If he is posting political comments [rah, rah Bush] using University computers, broadband, "internets", is that legit?
  •  It's not the left's fault (none)
    The war fucking sucks.

    This is my short, clear, and principled message.

    I think this might actually be the most important message to convey from kos's editorial:

    So blame Kennedy. Blame Boxer. Blame France. Blame Canada. Blame anti-war bloggers. Because it is they who have botched up the Iraqi campaign to the point of no hope. If it wasn't for them, our troops would still be basking in a flood of rose petals.

    •  fucking and sucking (4.00)
      I get the impression from your post that fucking and sucking are bad things.  This hasn't been my experience.  The war is definately a bad thing though.  Just don't get the comparison.
  •  Third paragraph is amazing (4.00)
    Kos -- that third paragraph (plus the sentence right after it) is one of the best things I've ever read on this site. Says it all. Well done.

    Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

    by abw on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:34:58 PM PST

    •  Peppered with some links (4.00)
      Plagarizing Kos and adding some links (quick-and-dirty search... nothing to be proud of):

      In the feverish minds of the war apologists, it doesn't matter that no WMDs were found, that torture chambers are still open for business, that this war is now rivaling Saddam's brutality for sheer number of Iraqis killed, that the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all having trouble recruiting, that our equipment is degrading to the point where we're creating a hollow military, that the war is costing us $200 billion and counting, that Israel is not safer as a  result of this war, that nearly 1,600 allied troops and counting have died on this fool's errand, that the US's original choice to lead Iraq -- Chalabi -- was an Iranian spy who told our enemies that we had cracked their communications code, that most of the Iraq is not under government control, that terrorists are now using the lawlessness in Iraq to recruit and train a whole new generation of terrorists, that our "Coalition of the Willing" is now a mere shell of its former self, that the world hates the United States, that the Euro is suddenly the hot currency, that Europe and Asia are both creating security organizations excluding the US, and that tens of thousands of our soldiers are coming home physically and mentally maimed.

      None of that matters to them.

      Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

      by abw on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:33:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  More examples from the family value crowd (4.00)
     
    Sex used in interrogations
    Guantanamo translator outlines tactics
    Paisley Dodds - Associated Press
    Friday, January 28, 2005

    San Juan, Puerto Rico --- Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear, and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

    A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review. The book details ways the military used women to humiliate prisoners, along with tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics, to get them to talk.

    It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp in eastern Cuba, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.

    "I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, 29, told the AP. ...........

    "The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft. .... more of this sick story here

    The rest of the world must look on us as a bunch of perverts.

     

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King

    by Do Something on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:35:14 PM PST

    •  and did they have a convoluted explanation (none)
      for how it WASN'T a religious war?

      If you try to destroy someone's relationship with God, isn't that the very definition of a religious war?

    •  Perverts (none)
      The pattern of abuse we've been noticing is for sexual abuse.  I think we must look really perverted to the world.

      I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:43:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (none)
      I kinda like the idea of using semi-nude women as an interrogition technique: "Talk you scum, or Bambi will take off her shirt!"

      Now, smearing fake menstrual blood on someone is definately beyond the pale.

      But shaking booty at them doesn't seem like a bad thing.

    •  Could it lead to this? (none)
      12 June 2007 Baghdad, Joint New Iraqi Republic Green Zone Administration:

      Captured troopers from a recon detail of the 1st MEF reported of being beaten and branded with large crucifix-like objects by their captors. A Jewish US Marine detainee described the same action, whose jaw was shattered, except by large baton with a stainless steel Magen David, or Star of David, attached to the end. The Lord's Prayer was also blasted into detainee's ears at loud volumes continuously for the time of their detention, except for when the Madhists were performing their interrogations, again using the aforementioned techniques. This has caused permanent hearing loss in many of those recently returned as part of an arranged heretofore unique prisoner exchange.

      Further these actions were performed by female family members, who related the stories of torture and humiliation by their male relatives in the recently reported story of "Abu Ghraib"-like conduct at a hidden "gulag" facility outside of the Saudi city of Ras Tanura.

      Reports of captured...

      "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

      by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:14:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blame Canada! Blame Canada! (4.00)
    With their little beady eyes, flapping heads so full of lies!

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

    by agrajag on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:36:34 PM PST

    •  hurry! (none)
      ...The smut we must stop
      The trash we must smash
      Laughter and fun
      must all be undone
      We must blame them and cause a fuss
      Before someone thinks of blaming...
      ...US!

      Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

      by turbonium on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:29:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Iraq Syndrome -- How can we make it stick? (4.00)
    The war apologists' star is falling, and will fall further as the war grinds on to inevitable U.S. defeat.

    After 1975, the "Vietnam Syndrome" -- popular opposition to military adventures abroad -- limited U.S. aggression in Central America and elsewhere. Part of the reason the "Vietnam Syndrome" lasted so long is because liberal critics exposed that the media (including, for example, the New York Times) had deliberately lied and misled the public to maintain popular support for that war.

    Unfortunately, the militarists were eventually able to rewrite the history of the Vietnam War. Now they have replayed the same cynical game of escalating fearmongering and lies, and have once again led the nation to ignominious defeat.

    In coming years, the world will benefit from U.S. "Iraq Syndrome" which will dampen U.S. voters' enthusiasm from the next war.

    Our side needs to make it stick better this time, by writing the media's perfidy indelibly in the popular mind.

    The SCLM lied --again -- to lead us into this war. Once the majority of Americans realizes that, we must make sure they don't forget it for a long, long time.

  •  How much worse...... (4.00)
    is it going to get before the word "lost" starts being used with the words "Iraq" and "war" in the MSM.

    At this point I think that the media has too much invested in Bushco to acknowledge the truth. hyping the faux election is anodyne for the masses.

    However, I think that the goalposts have been moved to the outer reaches of the stadium. I honestly don't see any other spin point that the administration can use to try to sell the story that things are going great over there.

    What's the tipping point for public opinion?? we've predicted it dozens of times, and all have come to naught. I cannot see Bush pulling a Vietnam-style withdrawal, not after all his bluster, not to mention the shiny new military bases Halliburton has built.

    Bush war record: one avoided, two botched.

    by susanp on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:38:21 PM PST

    •  When the insurgents shoot down the helios (none)
      landing in the green zone, on a regular basis, when our troops can't get supplies because we don't have any more helios, trucks, or ammo, THEN we'll leave.

      It won't take long -- our equipment is being used up and there's nothing to replace it, because, of course, this admin doesn't want to pay for it or even ask the manufacturers to ramp up production. To do that would mean they couldn't manufacture the CIVILIAN vehicles, etc.

      God forbid somebody should have to make a sacrifice -- other than our poor troops, that is.

    •  pfff! (none)
      "outer reaches of the stadium"

      Not even.  Them goal-posts are three counties over by now.

      Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

      by turbonium on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:31:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  BBCWORLD Davos w/Biden and McCain (4.00)
    If you can watch this then PLEASE DO, it is excellent.

    THe US senators are being questioned about the role of the US and Bush around the world. Biden is more pissed off how the world views Bush more than McCain.

    In attendence is also the Prime Minister of Iran and Australia.

    BBC did a poll which show that their is no shadow of a doubt the the world hates the US.

    Biden is getting hot on the collar McCain seems embarrassed.

    •  In today's Financial Times (none)
      John McCain, the influential US senator, on Friday gave voice to resistance in the Republican party to the use of force in Iran, signalling that the US had no appetite to fight "two wars".

      The rest of the story can be found at:

      http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f566e760-7169-11d9-a5d6-00000e2511c8.html

      In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:44:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was ashamed of Biden (none)
        he was more ruffled about the Europeans hating Bush more than McCain.
        •  Maybe (none)
          because he cares about what the world thinks of the U.S.

          I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

          by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:45:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and McCain doesn't (none)
            Biden came out and said that he was sick of all the Bush bashing and whining coming from Europe. McCain said it was a shame that the US refuses to acknowledge the Geneva Conventions and other international laws and he hopes that soon the US will  abide by them
            •  Reverse "good cop/bad cop" (none)
              diplomacy.

              McCain get to improve his standing with progresives and his particular concerns as a result of his capture in Vietnam.

              Biden gets to burnish his hawk credentials.

              And the United States wins because it hamstrings the rest of the world. Kind of like a hard board check in hockey. More like a chop block in football. Sports analogies, ya gotta love'em sometimes.

              That is how the game works. Give them mealy, vermin-ridden carrots and beat them with modern military-grade sticks. Truncheons. Batons.

              "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

              by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:37:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Because of dKos (none)
          We now have the power to do something about Vichy Democrats like Joe Biden--when he comes up for re-election we can fund his primary rival.  Doesn't Biden realize that if he and the Democrats had done their jobs and opposed Bush then the Europeans wouldn't have to do it for him?  It's not enough for us to take out the obvious cases like Joe Lieberman, we need to make an example of Biden as well; to teach all Democrats to join the resistance to Bush and to not take the Vichy appeasement route to defeat.
  •  Confuse the Jury - Call the other side Names (3.75)
    What's that old saying:

    If the facts are against you, argue on principle;

    If the principles are against you, argue the facts;

    When both the facts and the principles are against you, then call the other side names, and hope you can confuse the jury.

    •  Actually... (4.00)
      As I learned it, it's:

      "When the facts are for you, pound the facts.

      When the law is for you, pound the law.

      When neither is for you, pound the table."

      It's a principle appropriate to both sides of almost every political discussion--let's both talk about facts and principles rather than calling each other names.  We have the facts, and we have the principles.  Let's pound those rather than namecalling.

  •  Amazing (4.00)
    Kos, I think you have put this very well. Folks like Instahack will never, ever face up to the multitude of errors, mistakes, lies, and failures that have constituted the Iraq War. Instead of defending that war on its merits, and answering these criticisms, he chooses the route of intellectual dishonesty - finding some wackjob leftist to tar and feather and then claim speaks for all of us.

    While we're on the topic, I think Maxspeak put it brilliantly, in his own response to the "law professor":

    "If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power." Yes, if I had my way, Saddam would probably still be in power. And ten thousand American families would not be suffering. That's an easy call.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:39:53 PM PST

    •  Not true ... (none)
      Just before the war started, Saddam was quite ready to seek asylum. But Bushco didn't want to be seen giving an inch and negotiating with evil people.

      Ofcourse, we don't negotiate with evil people. We only do business with them ...

      World runs out of oil before social security runs out of money

      by nataraj on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:30:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Relatively quiet day in Iraq" (3.80)
    Dextor Filkins writes in the New York Times that today was a "relatively quiet" day in Iraq:

    "With soldiers and the police swarming the streets, the country passed through a relatively quiet day. A suicide bomber killed five people, including a child, in an attack on a police building in the town of Khanaqin, near the Iranian border. A gun battle broke out between Iraqi troops and insurgents on Haifa Street, one OF THE most dangerous thoroughfares in central Baghdad. Insurgents attacked at least seven polling places, from Dohuk in the north to Basra in the south."

    This is a QUIET day?

    I hate what we've done over there.  And I hate that I can't do anything about it besides post on this blog (which is a wonderful blog obviously, but there aren't enough people like the ones posting here).

  •  Reynolds has very easy talking from the (none)
    safety of his desk.

    What does he care about who gets killed in Iraq?  As long as he and his family are safe over here.  

    I don't support the draft, but that's probably one of a few things that would make people like Reynolds think twice about what's going on.

    When the fox preaches The Passion, farmer watch your geese.

    by reform dem on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:41:19 PM PST

  •  Iraq... (none)
    ...it's like Vietnam:  on crack!
  •  They've mastered Doublethink. (none)
    Did you notice how all the rhetoric about "shutting down Saddam's Rape Rooms" ended after Abu Ghraib broke?

    At the same time they were dismissing it all as a "fraternity prank"

    I have no idea whether it's conscious or unconscious.

    The French have no word for entrepreneur - GWB

    by Sovok on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:42:26 PM PST

  •  Provide the link? Please? (none)
    Okay, been out of loop I guess, totally missed the Glenn Reynolds material.  Possible to provide the 'link' to his diatribe in the article / otherwise?
  •  KOS! (none)
    Man, that was good.
  •  The only thing you have said that (none)
    i might want to comment on is,
    I think Israel is currently safer, probably more to do with their wall and recent events there and in palestine however, but the number of attacks they have seen has dramatically dropped.

    Other than that, SPOT ON.

    It's the rights mess to explain. No more Clinton to blame.

    I am a Reform Democrat

    by Pounder on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:49:28 PM PST

    •  It's only tangentially because of the war (none)
      I think the Palestinians attacks have gone down because their funding has gone down. The extremists in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are now sending funds to jihadists in Iraq, rather than to the Palestinians. Iraq is the center of the jihad now, not Israel.

      Plus, Sharon has the Palestinians so caged up that they are having less success infiltrating. I would like to know what more informed sources think about this.

    •  Spot on? (none)
      Really Pounder? That's not what you said in my post. Change your mind?

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:42:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right on Kos (none)
    Speak it brother!
  •  its all a matter of will (4.00)
    You create reality by sheer force of willpower, and the people who opposed the war are draining away our willpower, therefore any loss is their fault.  What do you expect from evilvangelicals whose defn of 'faith' is to believe unprovable (or disproven) questions of fact through sheer willpower?  If to get in the club you have to believe the earth is 6000 years old, you'll buy anything.  

    THAT's why Baptists worship Bush - a willingness to believe against all evidence makes him the Ultimate Manly Evangelical.  That, and Abu Ghraib is the perfect expression of evangelical Christianity, as it's goal was to make captured Iraqis obey and submit to the will of God's Appointed Leader.  BTW, don't the Arabs already have a word for submission to the will of God?

    Sheer force of manly will is enough, and mere facts just get in the way.  You just have to believe hard enough.  Bushco, I have faith but not enough, help me.  I'm letting mere fact (false truth, I guess) get in the way of believing the True Truth (a real-live evangelical term) that the war is right and we're winning.

    Luckily, I'm not bitter. :-)

    Grizzlebee's: You'll wish you had less fun.

    by sendtoscott on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:52:32 PM PST

    •  its not like these people (none)
      have no experience w/ the gnawing fear that everything they believe and have acted on is BS - Bushco is just more of the same in the life of an evangelical

      Grizzlebee's: You'll wish you had less fun.

      by sendtoscott on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:11:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Baptists worship W (none)
      Because he's heavily into smiting.  In a smite or smitten belief system, smiting is number one with a bullet.
    •  Power of the Will (none)
      Hitler and the Nazis were big on will and its power.  "Triumph of the Will" and all that.  I understand Hitler used to carry a volume of Schopenhauer around while serving as a runner in World War One.

      They were also big on the stab in the back as explaining the German defeat in World War One.

  •  Completely off the topic .. (none)
    But WOW...

    Its been a while since I have seen such a passionate post from Kos or any of the other front pagers.  Concise but yet saying so much.  

    More of these kinds of posts would be much appriciated.

    I dont know if there is a feasible way of 'packing it in" and still claiming America won the war!  And its unrealistic to expect any American politician to say Mission NOT accomplished and bring them home.........

  •  Nicely written, but so what? (4.00)
    I agree with you Kos and you are an articulate master of verse.  However - what's the point that is so worthy of the front page?  That the pro-war group is ignornant of reality - hasn't that been operating principle for the past 2 years. Shocking as it is the other side hasn't yet admitted failure.  How about a rant targeted at addressing solutions or actions instead of the same old "they are wrong, we are right" - the same crap you can read on the right wing side.  

    You may believe the other side is desperate.  I don't see it - and certainly not if you are actually speaking with "the other side."  I see the other side exploiting and profiteering from the war effort - why isn't this a strategy of the dems to publically exhibit and audit who is making real cash on this tragedy and exploit it as such?  Who are the corporate interests who were in before the invasion?  Who is there now?  What transactions have been conducted by foriegn subsidaries and why and how is this traced upstream to US corporate interests?  what is the pattern of corporate donation activity to contract awards?  Why is this information not transparent as it was in other US conflicts?

    We need some ingenuity on this site - just saying "bring em home" ain't working nor is shouting "we are right, you are wrong."  Isn't there a better way to show this war for what it really is?  How about demaning an independent CBO audit from our minority leadership?  

    Maybe I should just ignorantly join the chorus "yeah, screw the other side."  That really was effective in the 04 and 02 elections.

    •  Don't forget to add the following. (4.00)
      That the "insurgents" or whatever you wish to call the enemy forces against us in Iraq are not a small band of thugs.  That is just too illogical.  How could a band of thugs hold the most powerful military at bay for 2 years and kill 1400 of the best organized, equiped, and disciplined troops in the world.

      Americans, think for a change about what is happening over there and how could it be so sustained.  Your government cannot be telling you the truth.  It does not add up!  Money, power, great logistics and connections on a big scale are all needed to keep such things going.  Where is this all coming from for so long and getting stronger.

      Political censorship is the root of all evil! It is the antithesis to a functional democracy!!

      by truthbetold on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:07:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great point (4.00)
        You are absolutely right.  I think there is a story here on both sides of the equation on profiteering.  It would be a fascinating document to know who is making what selling to whom over there.

        If major Arab financiers are funding the insurgency and are also major stockholders of US corporate america, does this mean I, as a consumer, am inadvertently funding the insurgency?  WHat is the relationship between these corporations and the US adminstration?  

        Every business transaction can be audited - I don't know why dems are not using forsenic accounting to produce a different angle to the war.

        •  ummm... (none)
          I don't know why dems are not using forsenic accounting to produce a different angle to the war.

          Sure ya do, you just might not want to think about it.

        •  Appoint Spitzer... (none)
          to be the terrier at the IG's office in the next Democratic administration to tear into the labyrinthine rat holes left behind by Dim Son & Co.

          Perhaps we are purposely setting up the Saudis to be the ultimate bagmen and then yanking the rug out from under. Sneaky, that!

          "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

          by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:52:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your point is important (none)
      but not, in my opinion, as important as the one that Kos makes in his post.  We need to help this country get to the tipping point when they realize that the emperor has no clothes. When that happens, when they  realize just how completely they've been sold down the river by BushCo & apologists, that's when they'll be willing to look at the books and who was making money and so forth. But not now, when their sense of patriotism and pride is all wrapped up in believing what the right wing flacks want them to believe.

      Millions and millions of people have been convinced by the jingoistic nonsense spewing from the 101st fighting keyboarders, & that's why Reynolds & his ilk need to be thoroughly discredited. Only then, I think, will people be willing to follow the clues that you're talking about.

      yr frn,
      jrs

      Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Compl

      by jsundman on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:34:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  room for both (4.00)
        An in-depth, Frontline-style expose of specific, ongoing corruption or incompetence behind the scenes would be a good thing.  But there's definitely room for stating the obvious.  It isn't enough to do this once, either--it has to be every bit as mantra-like as the Right's delusional rationales have been.  

        As far as "addressing solutions or actions" goes, well...sometimes you can mess things up so badly that there isn't a solution or an obvious "best" course.  I don't think we should let ourselves be compelled to silence just because we don't have any better ideas on fixing it.  I always hark back to what The Poorman said:  

        "...And, before you ask: no, I have no clue about how we can im­prove things in Iraq. I don't have a single idea for how we can un­-shit the bed, and I don't hold out much hope that this whole bed-shit­ting episode is ever going to be brought to a lemony-fresh conclu­sion. I do, however, know who shit the bed, and have some sense of how f­requently he shits there. Let's stop shitting for a start."

        Let me state emphatically that we in the Bush administration do NOT condone torture. We sidle up to it, wink at it, and climb into bed with it.

        by turbonium on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:43:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  yes, unfortunately (none)
    The right was wrong--terribly wrong--and lots of death, suffering, misery, and destruction have been the result, with much more likely to come.  The right is responsible and more than a few should go to prison.  Not for a moment, though, can those who've opposed the war from the beginning, myself included, take any pleasure in being right.  We are right because all of the above are true, and they are horrible things.
  •  Proud Hawaiian dies in Iraq (none)
    This is somewhat off topic, but I just noticed an interesting passage in the moving Washington Post article yesterday (reprinted in the Advertiser today) about a Hawaiian soldier, Nainoa Hoe, who was killed last week in Mosul, that I wanted to share with folks here.

    Hoe's father Allen Hoe, a Vietman veteran, is now the Acting 1st Associate Justice for the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

    The tragic irony is that his father, despite his own military service, has come to sincerely believe that Hawaii remains an independent country under illegal prolonged military occupation by the United States, and clearly some of his father's Hawaiian nationalism rubbed off on Nainoa.

    Now his son has been killed in the occupation of another country.

    A surfer and swimmer, Hoe was so proud of his Hawaiian ancestry "you could say he was a nationalist," [Staff Sgt. Steve] Siglock said. Hoe's father, Allen, is a Vietnam veteran, and Hoe carried an American flag that his father had carried. His younger brother, Nakoa, is about to be deployed to Iraq as a member of 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry. Hoe was proud of his family's military history but joked that Hawai'i had been better off without the Mainland. "He would say, 'We don't have to be a state; we were fine without you, just fine,'" Siglock recalled.

    Auwe, Auwe, Auwe...

  •  Thanks, Kos n/t (none)

    "No. I'm pretty fuckin' far from OK."

    by moltar on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:13:42 PM PST

  •  Debating the War on Yahoo Chat room (3.75)
    While washing 10 loads of little kid laundry on an exciting Friday night, I decided to go into Yahoo Chat and see what I would find.

    I went into a political chat room and jumped into a debate on the War, and liberal vs. neo-con.

    We are fucked. They are sooo brainwashed, I can't fucking believe it. They will never acknowledge any cost of the war, lives, money, aliances, ect. It's as if the war has no cost, and the war is going pretty well. We know that part of the problem, a big part, is the right wing propaganda. They believe it without question. These people are so brainwashed, it seems like there is no hope of ever getting them rational again. And if we get into a Nazi Germany like situation, these nut jobs will only be too happy to be rank and file henchmen.

  •  Great piece in the Times today... (none)
    ... paralelling Vietnam that I diaried here.
  •  I'm having trouble feeling triumphant (none)
    and self righteous, considering what we are right about.  

    Never more has the analogy to Vietnam been more apt, because it will provide us a template as to what to do next.  We need to hit the history books and see what the anti-war movement did right and what they did wrong, 'cause I don't want to be having this discussion two years from now.

    Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.

    by pheidole on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:19:43 PM PST

    •  part of what they did right (none)
      was to disrupt things. That gets attention. That gets media. It also gets you thrown in jail. Sometimes it gets you killed.

      At least some of us have to be willing to be uncomfortable, jailed, or worse before they'll REALLY listen.

  •  Kudos, Kos ... (none)
    As excellent a summary of what the stupid, goddamn, steenking,  illegal, unnecessary war has wrought as will ever be seen anywhere.

    By God, you said it all. Thank you.

    WongoBoy's from here, but his buddy blogs at FarrFeed.

    by WongoBoy on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:20:16 PM PST

  •  Desperate...... (3.33)
    ...but not serious!

    Your kisses make me delirious!

    Sorry, had a New Wave Moment there.

  •  Keep writing today, Kos (none)
    It's coming out really well.
  •  question (1.40)
    First, I'm a liberal, ok, but can someone here please tell me how pulling out of Iraq and letting it plunge into civil war and become THE major staging ground for world terrorism is a good thing? Please.

    J.S.

    http://voicesofreason.info

    •  Let's see (4.00)
      Iraq is already in the middle of a civil war, the one we are engaged in losing as the cannon fodder for whichever puppet we have installed at the moment.

      The Iraqi terrorists, just like Mr Bin Laden, have very specific goals.  Ignoring Republican lies, they don't hate our way of life, they hate that we are propping up their dictatorships, supporting what they view as the wrong side in Palestine, and intervene to drive down the price of oil.  We leave, and it's over with.

      The war was built on a pillar of lies from beginning to end, with not not one word of claims from liars like Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, and George Bush about Saddam's WMDs, his ties to El Qaeda, or the like ever coming true.

      As a result of the war, 1500 Americans have died, another 6000 are terribly maimed having lost arms legs or brains, and recruiting for the reserves and national guard is a disaster.  Before the war, Hussein at various times most in the far past had killed ten thousand Iraqis a year.  In the last year, we have killed says the Lancet 100,000 Iraqis.

      We have forfeit the respect and good feeling of much of the world.  The American Army has a new world image: our people are the new barbarians who sodomize, torture, and abuse prisoners of war.

      As an aside, my late father was a medical officer in World War II.  He spent a year as medical officer to a POW camp.  He described the worst thing that ever happened to his prisoners, something that deeply upset him 20 years later because he had failed to protect them.  The German POWs were allowed to make Christmas sausage, and no one realized that in Germany at the time pig meat was safe to eat nearly raw, while in Georgia if you ate undercooked pork you would get trichinosis.

      We do have an American military officer in a past war who abused his prisoners.  He was the Confederate traitor who commanded at Andersonville.  At the end of the war he went to the gallows.

      The war on Iraq is a major threat to the United States, and it will get worse every day the Republican Moonbats continue their atrocity campaign against the people of Iraq.

    •  Nation editorial (4.00)
      It's possibly a subscription-only thing (I can't tell without logging out and messing up my cookie), but here's a key passage from a recent editorial in The Nation on withdrawing from Iraq:

      As long as the occupation continues, any Iraqi government or constitution will be tainted and incapable of producing the compromises necessary for a stable and unified Iraq. Therefore, for the sake of Iraq's future and the safety of our young men and women, the United States must begin an orderly withdrawal, coordinated with stepped-up US and international economic assistance. We recognize that further violence and internal fighting among Iraqis may follow, but to believe that a continuing US military presence can prevent this is naïve or disingenuous; it will, rather, contribute to the instability. The best long-term outcome is for Iraqis to regain control of their own country and sort out their own future.

      Strengthen "stepped-up US and international economic assistance" by adding "war/sanctions reparations" and you're closer to my thoughts on this.

      Them smokestacks reaching like the arms of god / Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay -- Springsteen

      by abw on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:02:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the short answer (4.00)
      Others are writing cogently in response to your question, but I would simply say that you presume we can prevail if we stay; I think we've already lost any hope of imposing our will (for good or ill) upon Iraq.  

      So the question then becomes, at what point do we cut our losses?  This is a Vietnam-era question (as John Kerry knows all too well); how do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

      We are not in control over there, and that means that our actions will only have unintended consequences, which are rarely good.

    •  The question is (4.00)
      how does staying in prevent an Iraqi civil war and becoming a staging ground for world terrorism.  The instability is our fault.  They are attacking us because they want us to leave.  They are attacking Iraqis that cooperate with us.  

      I think the civil war is inevitible now.  Staying or going is making no difference.

      I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:54:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe it isn't (none)
      We can discuss it. But don'rt call us "gloaters" and crackpopts for thinkingf and otherwise, and DON'T defend those who do and expect a fair hearing here.

      Condemn the irresponsible words from the Wingnuts and then let's talk.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:40:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why the right is dangerous (4.00)
    I think Reynolds embodies some of which bothers me so much about the NeoCons and the rest of the Religious Right.  Since they're not based in reality, everything they do has the potential to greatly harm this country because they cannot face the facts and change their plans accordingly.  

    Although most of us knew the war in Iraq was a horrible idea, the truth of it is, there were ways to mitigate damages both to the US Troops and to the poor civilians-yet this administration and the Right will never choose to deviate from their plans, even to save lives. They have a heads down mentality, and find it easier to blame the "liberals" than to admit the fact that they messed up and they need to figure out a solution.  

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

    by SairaLV on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:40:18 PM PST

  •  As (none)
    Jack Nicholson said, you (wingnuts) can't handle the truth!
    PEACE!
  •  We've only trained 4,000 Iraqis (none)
    4,000 that are capable of taking the place of an American. There are 200,000 that have been given a uniform and called "trained" by the administration.
  •  Have we lost our minds? (1.22)
    No, Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war- a few thousands evil sick bastards who are willing to kill thousnads of innocent Iraqis to make a point- are trying to stop any progress in the entire country- is the U.S. blameless, of course not?- but letting Zarqawi and the Sunni thugs win is so ridiculous and so dumb that as a proud member of the Left I start to understand why people on the Right think we're stupid. The insurgents are the closest thing to pure evil and that people on the Left want to withdraw and allow them to turn Iraq into the next Afghanistan, replete with new terrorist training camps, boggles my mind. I repeate, separate your hatred of Bush and Right, from doing the right thing.

    J.S.

    http://voicesofreason.info

    •  normally i'd agree with that (4.00)
      but now, after a year and a half of occupation you have to wonder what our continued presence there represents to the iraqi people.  do we provide safety?  did we not disband the iraqi army and not protect the borders?  did we not secure explosives?  we sustain some order, but even when we're successfully killing insurgent terrorists, we can't seem to prevent collateral damage.  we haven't provided basic utilities, water and electricity, stuff they had before the invasion.  our presence there has not provided jobs, when we have the opportunity to use iraqi industry (cement, is just one example) we contract out to turkey, or haliburton, bechtel and such.  so we don't represent to them economic opportunity.  you could argue we represent to them a HUGE economic threat.  without a doubt.   you don't think everyday iraqis notice american companies preserving and protecting oil fields more than they're protecting the iraqis themselves?

      now also mix in the round up and incarceration of iraqis without due process.  now mix in the torture.  

      so what this all amounts to is that question:  what does our continued presence represent to the iraqi people?

      do we represent stability?  or are we just polarizing every moderate iraqi against us and other iraqis trying to work with the US, so much so that the insurgency is growing?  

      you see, normally i'd agree with your point of view, if different people were in charge of the occupation, i'd say stay, get other countries involved, stop the torture, and we should stay.  we broke it, we own it.

      but the neo-cons are running the show.  it appears the insurgency is growing which means our presence is sending moderate iraqis (folks like you and i who never in their lives would have thought to pick up a gun until their lives were turned upside down by the american occupiers) over to the isurgency.

      normally, i'd agree.  in this case, i can't.

      •  Uh, just a newbie but (none)
        Why would it be a good thing to keep in place the army that had the day before been trying to blow you to bits?  Everyone says, yeah, we could have had 'em up and running in no time.  Huh?  So, Ike conquers Germany, the Nazis lay down their guns, and the next day they pick them up again to protect the peace?  What the fuck?  I guess I'm far too feeble-minded to understand Realpolitik.

        "No. I'm pretty fuckin' far from OK."

        by moltar on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:45:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the mistake is assuming (none)
          the entire iraqi army was devout ba'athist.  i'm sure many were.  and they would have taken to the hills anyway..  it wasn't a fight anyway the iraqi army would have initiated, once invasion took place they retreated into insurgency, as anyone could have predicted...  now being stupid and going to the moderate iraqi soldier and assuming he's a ba'athist soldier and forcing him into the hills as well is a mistake.  

          it's not a black and white situation.  there were devout ba'athists (still are, they're the terrorists now) and moderate ba'athists.  for instance, if you wanted to be a doctor in iraq you had to become part of ba'athist regime, now that didn't necessarily make you a ba'athist in the hussein family people torturing rape room sense of the word, likely that made you someone in a fucked up militant country doing whatever it took to become a doctor.  ostensibly someone just like you and me, cause all you really want to do is save lives.

          we turned those kinds of doctors away too.

          •  It's because... (none)
            we did not want moderate Ba'athist terrorists.

            But we keep making them, like Doritos, by radicalizing the marginal ones that are closer to "devout" than other with the United States military.

            A "devouti" is a moderate whose life has been turned on its head by a foreign occupation.

            "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

            by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 07:02:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  No, "we" haven't lost "ours" (none)
      You, troll, are a known quantity.  

      Piss off.  

      Who else is killing innocent Iraqis to make a point?  

      The right doesn't hear us, they hear what they're told we say.  The also can't handle the facts, so they hide.  This explains the poor quality of your analysis.  

      Since when is Rand Corp a leftist organization?  

      Yes, Iraq is now another Afghanistan.  And you want to continue the policies that made it that way.  What was that about stupid?  

      Bush hatred.  Nice.  Sorry, but resorting to that only tells us what you are.  

      "...because ignorant, fearful, and superstitious people are easy to use, that's why!"

      by Grand Moff Texan on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:04:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Gambler (none)
      You got to know when to hold'em
      Know when to fold 'em...
    •  say what???????? (none)
      The insurgents are the closest thing to pure evil

      This doesn't resonate with any left-based outlook on politics, political violence and struggles over power that I'm familiar with.

      In fact, the use of "evil" as a category of political analysis is one normally employed by fanatical polemicists, not folks serious about politics.

      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by a gilas girl on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:30:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zarqawi and the "Sunni thugs" (none)
      Couldn't win until Bush invited them to participate in the game. Now it's anybody's guess. Blame the "insurgents" if you like, but they are a George W. Bush production, so it all comes back again.

      Grow up and be objective for a change.

      "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:41:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you crazy? (4.00)
      Sheesh. I take back the offer to have an intelligent discussion on the issue of withdrawal of troops.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:44:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bring Saddam back (none)
      to power to avoid the civil war you are talking about. Please "separate your hatred of Saddam from doig the right thing," OK?
    •  Check your numbers. (none)
      "a few thousands evil sick bastards who are willing to kill thousnads of innocent Iraqis to make a point."  

      Even if you go down to the second-tier of the Bush administration, I don't think it's in the thousands.  A couple hundred, plus a few thousand psychos (Graner, England, etc.) in the military.  

    •  So transparent...are you paid by Bush? (none)
  •  Wish I had said that (none)
    I think that about covers it Markos. Well said.

    Libby Spencer

  •  Instacracker quote via Tbogg (none)
    the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.

    Wha...?  

    It's not just his personality that's delaminating, it's his usage and grammar.  

    The worse things get, the more they're going to need us to blame.  

    "...because ignorant, fearful, and superstitious people are easy to use, that's why!"

    by Grand Moff Texan on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:53:16 PM PST

  •  The same thing happened with Vietnam (none)
    There is still a considerable number of people who are convinced that we would have won in Vietnam were it not for the war protesters (such as John Kerry).

    Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in Interesting Times

    by Chris Andersen on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:00:56 PM PST

    •  Pride goeth before a fall...sometimes (none)
      We fell, but these people never recognized that fact.  So they have pride based on what might have been, what should have been if only everyone had shut up and let the war continue for decades.  
  •  oh yeah ... (none)
    I watched the [C-SPAN] senate democratic policy committee hearings on Social Security 'reform'.

    Employees of the SSA are testifying that they are being required to PUSH the [political]
    agenda of 'reformers' [with scare tactics ... "crisis"..."bankrupt"... "the Youth"] rather than serve the true interests of the PUBLIC.
    (Criteria FOR presentations/talking-points/etc are layed-out in their present job reqmts)

    this agenda dovetails with:

    --  accountant of GAO being compelled to misrepresent Medicare costs, to push thru reform.
           (and, getting away with it!)

    --  WMD scare tactics [& lies], to "validate" neocon agenda.

    --  payollas to journalists, to prop up administration agendas.

    --  outing Plame, because her husband told the truth to American people.

    --  Admin touting "freedom" ... "democracy" rhetoric ... while sneaking PatAct thru congress.

    --  on & on ...

    The lies dazzle the uninformed masses ... and befuddle the informed.
    This has got to be called for what it IS!  Rampant FRAUD, from the very top.

    Unless our conception of patriotism is progressive, it cannot hope to embody the real affection and the real interest of the nation. ---Jane Addams

    by Orj ozeppi on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:06:14 PM PST

  •  Expect more of the same (4.00)
    As the rationale for this war becomes more and more disproven, as even the lapdog media becomes more and more disenchanted with the endless rah-rah of war propaganda while Iraq continues its slide into chaos, our soldiers continue to come home in body bags, and the rest of the world continues to focus on the thousands of dead Iraqis and the latest torture scandals, expect this administration to become more shrill and more authoritarian in its insistence that the war is going perfectly well, thank you, and you're a treasonous dog for disagreeing.  Don't think that accusations of "borderline treason" are the worst we'll see.  The more defensive the neocons become, the more they will lash out.  Be prepared.
    •  It scares me too (4.00)
      I've often thought just what you said.  My problem is that I'm in the Army.  I joined to fight Al Qaida, but instead leave for Iraq in few months.  I didn't support going into Iraq, even though I believe that now we have to clean up our own mess, and I don't support Bush.  It hurt me inside during the last election when I couldn't openly work for the Kerry campaign for fear of reprisal.  I comment on several other blogs regularly, but I never use my name and I have set up a seperate email address so that no one knows who I am.  I don't even mention the blogs I read to my close friends, just in case.  It's not that I'm afraid they'll get me know, but I've got a few years still on my contract, and who knows how bad it'll get in the next few years?  How long until we have a red scare style reaction to any one who sympathizes with Arabs or Islam?
      •  Prayers for you (none)
        I hope for your sake, for the sake of all of our soldiers presently in Iraq, and for the sake of the Iraqis that tomorrow's election is a roaring success and that the US can get out ASAP.  Unfortunately, the news to date does not give me a whole lot of hope for the election or for us getting out.  Bush would have to admit to a mistake to immediately withdraw our troops and I can't think of any mistakes that he has admitted to thus far.  Also, if Iraq is a disaster, he will have trouble selling another war to the American people.  Have you considered Canada?
          •  serious question (none)
            Should a guy from, oh, Trier or Berchtesgaden (near where I was born, at Landstuhl Regional Medical) have deserted in 1943?

            Or not?

            "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

            by bellatrys on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:27:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No... (none)
              according to what was proper and enforcibly correct by the state, his duty was to fight the barbarian godless Communist Mogol vermin on the Eastern Front at Kharkov and Kursk. Orel. The Dniepr line.

              All the while falling back to Berlin.

              See you in the spring of 1945.

              "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

              by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:03:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you think the State is all, then? (none)
                and that we should just be Good Germans, and do what we're told?

                You have no morals and no ethics then. And you at least will deserve it, when the hammer of history comes down on us in our turn.)

                (I was thinking, in specific, of the still-living soldier who didn't like guarding at Auschwitz, btw. Not everyone was in combat, just as not everyone - in fact the majority aren't - in combat in our own military.)

                "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

                by bellatrys on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:32:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I failed to... (none)
                  <snark>itize my posting.

                  I was trying to be ironic. I was stating that the average German would have fallen in lockstep (or in their case, goosestep) with the status quo. Like our young, ready to be deployed to Iraq friend. For fear of the known and unknown panalties that would be his in this society of ours.

                  The fear of ostracization, by saying no one will ever love you or want you, is the one being propagandized and drilled into the minds of the febrile youth of this country. This is the penalty, the "death", that the institutions of our society instill in its youth, in a a multitude of methods.

                  The State is to be watched vigilantly by its citizens. This is the watchword of the ages.

                  Apologies for failing to alert for "snark". I have been on dKos for quite some time and have enjoyed your posts. And you have rated and commented on mine.

                  Just a case of "friendly fire". It happens sometimes.

                  "But then I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and the oomny ones use, like, inspiration and what Bog sends." -- Alex de Large

                  by rgilly on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:44:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Think about what you're saying (none)
        I would never encourage any soldier to do anything except perform his duty.  My family has a long and honorable association with the armed forces.  But think about what you said.  You're about to fight in a war which you oppose, against a citizenry who poses no threat to the US in any way.  You can't openly participate in American democracy as a Kerry supporter -- a legitimate presidential candidate fielded by a legitimate political party.  You're reluctant to let anyone know who you are and how you feel.  Is that reflective of a country that supports open and free democratic action?

        I'm not criticizing you.  I don't post under my real name, either.  I've had swastikas painted on my windows and my car vandalized.  The reprisals you risk as a member of the military will possibly be far worse.  I'm just saying that you need to consider carefully the implications of what you choose to do for the next few months.  Your decision must be your own, guided by your conscience and your goals and aspirations for you and your family.  Whatever you decide, I wish you well.

        •  Let me clarify (none)
          I can openly support a presidential candidate, and in fact I did on the most local of levels (with my friends and coworkers).  It is just very difficult because it is against the rules for us to try and speak as official representatives of the armed forces.  You and I realize that just because somebody is in the military doesn't mean that they are a representative, but a lot of Americans don't seem to.  Because of that, it is mainly just easier to not sign up for any conventions.  That said, it is a shame.  My friends and I sort of joke that in order to defend democracy and free-speech, se gave up our own speech and joined a communist system.  Although, when you think about it, it's not really all that funny.
  •  Reality isn't being too kind to their side. (none)
    In the words of Phillip K. Dick, Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.  

    In this case, though, I suppose Reality is that which, even if you haven't started believing in it, doesn't go away.

    Sometimes I wonder what he would say if he were here to see all this.  Then I remember that he more of less predicted all this....

    "...your grasp has exceded your reach/ And you put all your faith in a figure of speech..." -- Warren Zevon

    by Roddy McCorley on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:13:37 PM PST

  •  Mediawhores are still whoring (none)
    Just watched the first ten minutes of the ABC News with Peter Jennings in Baghdad, and the cheerleading for Bush's war continues, with the same delusionary bull-shit about Democracy blah blah blah.

    Thanks for the righteous rant Kos.  And the hell with the whore media and the asshole wingnuts.

  •  The Danger (4.00)
    One difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that during Vietnam the Press actually took risks to expose offical lies (e.g. the Pentagon Papers).  Today the courtier Press are Bush's utter lackey's.  Because they are unwilling to commit the ultimate sin in a monarchy of lese majeste, they refuse to call blatant lies what they are.

    Here lies the danger implicit in the Bushco/wingnut delusion.  They were SO FAR FUCKING WRONG that in a society that wasn't dysfunctional they would have already been completely and publicly humiliated.  Instead, the majority of our country is in deep denial, while events just get worse and worse.  Because they were so badly wrong, they will clutch at any straw to redeem themselves.  That straw could be an endless escalation of violence in Iraq or, perhaps, a crusade against Iran.  

    Bush's entire experience in the presidency has been marked by the peril of chronically declining popularity.  The only exceptions to the monotonic decline in Bush's popularity since January 2001 have been when there was some kind of military action.  In their desperation, military action will look increasingly attractive to the sociopaths in the Bush Administration.  These are dangerous times.

    •  Bingo (4.00)
      Many of the Vietnam analogies are right on target, but the lack of a functioning US press is the thing that screws the pooch, and the stunning disconnect between reality and the complete fantasy world of Bushco is really frightening.

      The country is collectively in such deep, utter denial that I fear that the better analogy might be Germany in the 1930s rather than the US in the 1960s.

      I never believed this country could embrace fascism so quickly and so effortlessly.

  •  Intelligent design? (none)
    One thing's for sure: There's none of that in this administration's policies.
  •  Ain't it the Truth (none)
    "while Bush is out there chasing a has-been dictator whose best days were 15 years ago."

    A has been dictator who used to be on the payroll.     Saddam was still getting pension checks on the 14th and 29th even when he moved to ant hole 8. He had a   great mailman.  

  •  Not About Right and Wrong (4.00)
    This isn't even about Iraq, per se.

    I don't think of myself as fortunate to be "right" about Iraq. Or Bush. I also don't think of myself as "prescient" or "honest".

    But I do think that my worldview is characterized by two principles above all others: logic and empathy.

    These people believe in neither, so they'll do what they can to hold onto their Hobbesian fantasies.

    "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:37:44 PM PST

  •  The wingnuts will say (none)
    ...its Clinton's fault for acting against Saddam sooner.  

    ...its the liberal media's fault reporting so few of the good things that have happened in Iraq so far.

    ...its France's fault for undermining the US cause and bleeding European support away.

    ...it the fault of a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib, not the tone set from the top of the chain of command.

    ...its the Democrats' fault for not wholeheartedly supporting the president in time of war.

    ...its Michael Moore's fault.

    Get it? Its not chimpy's fault because he's never made any mistakes (ok, other than making a few wrong personnel assignments). I know because I heard him so say during the debates.

    "ID card? I don't need no stinkin' ID card. I already know who I am!"

    by Agent of Fortune on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:38:09 PM PST

  •  Thanks kos (none)
    apparently we're  are also the targets of this kind of crap right here at dkos, with kossacks supporting the bullshit.

    "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

    by Armando on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:38:20 PM PST

  •  Improvement in the war (4.00)
    The best part about Bushco's statements about the war is that they don't seem to think that it will get better.  Of course, their right; they've gotten us all into one hell of a mess.  But Rommy has now been using the fact that attacks will still occur after the elections as justification to keep troops there.

    The other day at work I mentioned that I opposed the war in Iraq.  Being in the army, my peers didn't agree.  They used the prescence of insurgents as proof that Iraq was a violent society.  It seems that the results of our invasion are now the justifications as well.  

    They said capturing Saddam would be the turning point, it wasn't.  The same will be true of the elections.  In October when they are supposed to ratify their new constitution, conservative pundits will predict improvement once again.  And they will continue to be wrong.  And the saddest part of all is that when they are wrong they sill continue to use the resistance to American forces to justify our prescence.

  •  That was awesome! (none)
    !

    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

    by NoAlternative on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:10:01 PM PST

  •  Keeps me coming back (none)
    You are so eloquent, Kos.  It is posts like this one that are the soul of this blog.
  •  Civil discourse (1.37)
    It amazes me when people on the Left sound like right-wing talk-show hosts, but anyway, I'm gonna put that aside, and ask all those who would like to join Ted Kennedy and withdraw all of our troops now what they would expect to happen if we were to do that- and how does this fit in with their view of national security and fighting Islamic terrorists? Or do you not believe that there are terrorists in the Middle East who would like to kill Americans? I'm just curious. And let's keep this civil, that's usually one thing where we have a clear advantage over the right-wing.

    J.S.

    http://voicesofreason.info

    •  Islamic Terrorists (none)
      Yes, I am sure there are Islamic terrorists in the middle east who would like to kill Americans.  I am also sure that their number has increased as a result of our invasion of Iraq.  I do not believe that the so-called "insurgents," are necessarily terrorists.  If another country invaded the US and we all took to the streets with whatever arms we could muster, would we be insurgents or terrorists?  Or would just be defending our country from the invaders?  I know they are also killing their own citizens.  If, in the above scenero, your neighbor gave aid to the invaders would you not consider hit to be an enemy of your country also?  
    •  There are Al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan (none)
      and Afghanistan that still pose a threat.  You just think hitting random brown muslims will do the trick?  Or might that make more terrorists?

      My vision is that 1)The Israelis should get out of the West Bank complete with the settlers.

      2)We need to give aid to Pakistan to secure nukes and fund their public education system so it isn't being run by the same Taliban nutcases that ran Afghanistan.

      3)Pressure the Saudies into taming down the fundy rhetoric in there schools.

      4)As to the foriegn Arabs that have come to Iraq to fight us.  If we aren't there to fight, they won't have a reason to stay there.  MOst of the baddies are Sunnies and the Sunnies don't have much Darwinistic potential against the Shias.  It is good if they fight for control. It will kill off most of the Saudi jihadist sympathetic to bin Laden.  Let's face the fact that if any of them did stay, including the Jordanian nut case, the asskicking Iraqi Nationalists would go after them next, since Iraqis are terribly paranoid about foriegn takeover,  which would be poetic justice since I suspect the Jordanian nutcase wouldn't live long.

      5)Anyway, Israel departure from Lebanon created great stability there.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:04:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Geez (none)
      way to go, start with an insult, sure to give you a fair hearing.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:29:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Keep this civil? You failed your own test ... (none)
      ... in the first sentence.
  •  Axiom (none)
    My axiom for the day, related to the architects of the Iraq war: never argue with a crazy person.
  •  When Saddam Was Captured (none)
    I wonder how it would have worked out if we had withdrawn our troops right after we had captured Saddam?  If we had really believed "Mission Accomplished," rather than hanging around to create more death and distruction.
  •  we'd be winning (none)
    in Iraq if only we had more of those Support the troops magnets
  •  The Nutty Professor (none)
    The bedrock principle of the American legal system is that a vigorous debate between two opposing sides (plantiff/prosecutor & defendent) generally allows thinking people (a jury) to reasonably acheive consensus on the truth.

    Odd, then, that a law professor from Tennessee can become so unhinged at the prospect of a large groups of Americans who don't share his beliefs.

    Poor Glenn Reynolds is intellectually incapable of engaging in a substantive debate with the people with whom he disagrees -- whom he derisively terms "the left" (as if that is a bad thing).

    Instead, he stoops low into the mud and avoids substance, and directs words like "traitorus" "self-hatred" and "idiocy" at his opponents because he is so offended by those Democrats of principle would dare to speak of the multiple failures of the Iraqi adventure.

    So intimidated by the opposing point of view is Glenn, that one wonders if the good "lawyer" would become unhinged in a courtroom should a presiding judge dare to allow opposing counsel to present a case.

    What a sad little man....

  •  Scott Ritter (none)
    Scott Ritter presents a powerful indictment of the invasion at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-31.htm The former U.S. arms inspector calls what we have done in Iraq "a crime of gigantic proportions."
  •  good job, markos (none)
    I like when you get mad.  You don't pull punches, and go straight for the jugular.  Write like this more often!
  •  Latest Bush (none)
    Bush says we'll stay after the elections:  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20050129/pl_nm/iraq_bush_d c
    This fool just doesn't know when to quit.
  •  Elections (none)
    Roughly four more hours till polls open in Iraq -11:00 pm our time.  
  •  Well put, btw. (none)
    Some excellent points made here.  Yet no one has mentioned that this short entry is an exquisite piece of writing, strong, clear & succinct.  The central paragraph laying out the salient faults of this war is going into my files for use in blog ripostes, LTEs and emails.  I suggest others do the same.
  •  Glenn is proof (none)
    That even idiots can become law professors.  Maybe the bar is set very low in Tennessee.
  •  On CSPAN Sunday morning (none)
    the wingnuts are jumping all over Ted Kennedy, turning the insurgent's violence on him. Blaming Kennedy for supporting 'the enemy' and calling for the senator's impeachment. Thank god I don't own an uzi...
  •  Faith-based lunatics (none)
    is what I want to address.  It isn't enough to blithely dismiss these people with that phrase.  
    While it is true that matters of faith and belief are convenient concepts because they are beyond being proven either true or false, what does it mean when faith is combined with creationism in a coherent strategy.
    Don't be so quick to reject the notion that there is a coherent strategy.  If one believes that the  material world is the result of the activity of a creator, whose works are perceived by man as spontaneous, then what is the role of man in this scenario?  If God is the maker, doesn't it make sense for man to destroy, indeed to facilitate the act of creation by hastening destruction, instead of letting things fall apart on their own?
    That, in fact, is what you believe if you subscribe to the theory of "creative destruction." Since destruction is the antecendent of creation, then destruction is ipso facto good and man's participation is a virtue.
    If you don't agree, just reflect on the assumptions prior to the aggression on Iraq.  Not only were the people going to form up into a democracy spontaneously, once the dictator was destroyed, but the "necessary" destruction of their infra-structure, their water line, their sewers, their electric plants would all be rebuilt better than they were before.  (Almost every bit of footage that the major media is bringing out of Iraq has troops talking about how much better the infrastructure they are rebuilding is going to be than it was before.  And the locals agree.  But the locals are talking about a year ago and the troops are thinking five-ten years ago.  Never is it mentioned that the rebuilding has been made necessary by the destruction our bombs wrought).
    Now, you may conclude that these people are all operating under a delusion. That it's just a theory that is wrong, much as they would argue that evolution is wrong.  
    But that's not the point. If you believe in evolution, then you see man as a positive force who participates in the process of transformation and creation.  If you believe that only God creates, then you see man as a destructive and a necessarily destructive part of the universal process.  Told to be part of creation, you answer, "I am.  I'm doing my part by knocking down what god in his mercy will build up again."

    Why is creationism attractive?  Because the destructive role is easy.  

    Do most of its adherents see that?  Not likely.  but it sure is convenient not to have to feel guilty about the messes you leave in your wake.

  •  Desperate? (none)
    Thy name is die Bittereinder.  There's more from Tim Blair on the today's huge victory for freedom and democracy.
  •  BEST summary of Iraq mess ever (none)
    Well done Kos!

    In the feverish minds of the war apologists, it doesn't matter that no WMDs were found, that torture chambers are still open for business, that this war is now rivaling Saddam's brutality for sheer number of Iraqis killed, that the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all having trouble recruiting, that our equipment is degrading to the point where we're creating a hollow military, that the war is costing us $200 billion and counting, that Israel is not safer as a  result of this war, that nearly 1,600 allied troops and counting have died on this fool's errand, that the US's original choice to lead Iraq -- Chalabi -- was an Iranian spy who told our enemies that we had cracked their communications code, that most of Iraq is not under government control, that terrorists are now using the lawlessness in Iraq to recruit and train a whole new generation of terrorists, that our 'Coalition of the Willing' is now a mere shell of its former self, that the world hates the United States, that the Euro is suddenly the hot currency, that Europe and Asia are both creating security organizations excluding the US, and that tens of thousands of our soldiers are coming home physically and mentally maimed...

    Sigh... Bush turned US into a banana republic with nukes

    by lawnorder on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:43:44 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site