Skip to main content

In the Washington Post's front page story this Sunday about the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War, the newspaper makes a highly misleading statement about the Republican Party's position. After a comment by Montana Democratic Senate nominee Jon Tester demanding a "plan to move the troops out of Iraq," the Post claims flatly that "no Republican is advocating that the United States maintain high troop levels indefinitely."

One could stretch to make the argument that such a statement is technically true - no Republican has gone on record saying word-for-word "I want to keep large amounts of U.S. troops in Iraq forever." However, top Republican leaders have repeatedly gone on record making statements or taking concrete steps that support actually KEEPING large amounts of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely.

For example, less than three months ago, Reuters reported that "congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country." In other words, despite the Post's claim, Republicans just a few months ago actually went on record as supporting the concept of a permanent, indefinite military presence in Iraq (you can see the video of the congressional debate here). Congressional Democrats' efforts to prevent U.S. troops from being in Iraq indefinitely came after the BBC reported that the administration made massive emergency spending request for base construction that the House Appropriations Committee noted was"of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases." A week after that request, "top US General John Abizaid refused to rule out a long-term presence" in Iraq. In fact, this hasn't just been going on this year. The Chicago Tribune reported in 2004 that Bush administration military planners were moving forward with plans for "constructing 14 enduring bases, long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops."

Then there is President Bush, who stated just last week that we will not be reducing troops "while I'm the president." That was just the latest statement from the administration and the Pentagon about indefinite troop deployments. For example, in May of 2004, international news service AFP reported that the administration quietly announced that it will "keep high force levels in Iraq indefinitely."

Even if you just look at Tester's opponent, Republican Sen. Conrad Burns (R), it's clear that Republicans are quite brazenly advocating for indefinite deployments of large amounts of U.S. troops in Iraq - regardless of what the public thinks about the war. As the Associated Press reported last week, "Burns said the U.S. must show 'great patience and resolve' and stay in Iraq even if public support for the war continues to erode."

Here's the thing - politicians either support a plan to draw down troops at some point in the future, or they support leaving U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely. There is no "middle ground" and there is no "third way." Being for one of those positions automatically means you are against the other position, and vice versa - it's a zero sum question, no matter how much the Washington Post, the Beltway neoconservatives or D.C. Republican Party operatives try to fudge the issue with warmed over double talk. In other words, this is the one of the times where Bush's black-or-white world view is actually applicable: you are either for ultimately bringing troops home, or you are against ultimately bringing troops home - and thus for leaving them as targets in the Iraqi shooting gallery indefinitely.

Democratic incumbents and candidates have largely united in support of pushing the White House to begin crafting a plan to get troops out of Iraq. That is a position polls show the majority of Americans support - and a position the stay-in-Iraq-indefinitely Republican Party opposes. While the Post may want to try to create false Democratic rifts in order to fabricate grist for its front page, and may want to push dishonest storylines about the GOP supposedly not being for indefinite troop deployments, the facts speak for themselves.

Originally posted to davidsirota on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 10:52 AM PDT.

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

  •  The POST is shameless (42+ / 0-)

    They're determined to keep the same old tired political narratives alive.   It's like a pacifier for these out-of-touch Beltway gasbags -- "Dems divided,  and Republicans are Big Strong Men."


    Thanks fpr pointing this out, Mr. Sirota.  I'm a huge fan of your work -- please keep it up!

  •  'Stay the course' (34+ / 0-)

    What part of "stay the course" does the Washington Post NOT understand? Take Bush at his word. He wants to stay there until "victory," and since we are loosing, what does that mean?

    Well, in a way the WAPO is right. Maybe the Republican plan does NOT mean...

    ...maintain high troop levels indefinitely...

    But instead it just means...

    ...maintain high troop levels until we have exhausted our military and bankrupted our country...

    Great plan, Republicans!  Great plan!

  •  The Post is not out to get Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    Stop playing the Republican meme of bashing the media, and recognize that not all articles are well-done. Your assumption that "The Post may want to try to create false Democratic rifts in order to fabricate grist for its front page" is a silly one, at best, particularly for a promising journalist like you.

    >> If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. | JAMES MADISON

    by The Wife of Bath on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:05:25 AM PDT

  •  WaPo is prob. just putting articles (8+ / 0-)

    out there because they work within the narrative. The school of lazy journalism.

    Of course, the cynic in me thinks that WaPo distorted the GOP position on Iraq or at least did another "Dems are divided" article, because they've been hearing whines from the GOP about its front page articles on Allen's m***** insult.

    Visit my blog Penndit. Media, politics, campaigns, and political communications.

    by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:29:01 AM PDT

  •  What IS the WH strategery for Iraq? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, fhcec, accumbens, ERyd

    We've heard plenty of cheap slogans, but we've yet to actually hear a concrete strategy.  We know that they want permanent bases, but they won't acknowledge that publicly.  What "course" are we continue to stay upon?  

    What's the anticipated time frame for the Iraqis to "stand up?"  What is the metric for deciding when they've done so?  Cliches about satellite dishes are no substitute for actual concrete measurements.

    If the WaPo analyzed the WH approach the same way that it analyzed the Dem approach, the WH approach would look ridiculous.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:33:44 AM PDT

  •  A distinction: plan or no plan (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps the distinction is between keeping the troops there without a plan for withdrawal versus actively creating a concrete plan for withdrawal.

    It would be difficult for the Republicans and their witting and unwitting supporters to argue that making a plan for withdrawal aides the enemy or the insurgents.  By doing that they would have to admit that they are there indefinitely.  And, afterall, who could argue that the enemy would be surprised by such planning. What kind of stupid administration would fail to make such a plan?  (three guesses and the first two don't count)

    As long as the plan is contructed with the enemy's response in mind.  Of course, such planning would require foresight, something Bush and the Republicans lack as evidenced by the Iraq failure and dilemma itself as well as the response to Katrina. Democrats, in contrast, are smart and have imagination to do it.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:36:39 AM PDT

    •  The replican's arguement that if we tell the (0+ / 0-)

      insurgents when we will leave that they would just wait us out is totally ass backwards. If we tell them we're leaving they'll want to get us before we vacate, if their goal was to kill us. And if we're leaving once we've got them all, the insurgents would just stand down to encourage our departure. They want us out, and as long as they think we're not going to leave they're going to keep bombing(ieds) and shooting, which is why the neocons want to stay, not so that we can keep them there and not here, but to keep the region unstable and make big war profits.

      George Felix Allen Jr, Dumber than George W. Bush

      by ERyd on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:30:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The media sucks, starting with WAPO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When I want the truth, I come here, I take a good look around, I read anything but newspapers (shit, I get a better take from the back of the Corn Flakes box).

    In the coming conflagration, when the truth tellers destroy the liars, those newspapers will make excellent fuel.

    Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else? - James Thurber

    by JuliaAnn on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:37:24 AM PDT

  •  "as long as I'm President" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam I Am, ERyd
    is what Bush said.

    In Bush's mind, that's indefinite.

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:43:26 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I'm a little worried about that, too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mauimom, theyrereal

      More than a little, actually.

      On the other hand, Bush has narrowed the choices available down to two:

      1. You're either for three-plus more years of war in Iraq (and god knows where else)...


      1. You're for impeachment.

      Period. Those are the two choices. The media won't talk about impeachment, but people are. You can choose, or you can not choose (though if you don't choose, a choice will be made for you, a la Ghostbusters, and it will not be the choice you want - that's how these things work).

      The message for 2006 is: Republicans are a bunch of fucking crooks, and they're fucking up the country.

      by Christopher on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:42:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BTW your headline's too nice (0+ / 0-)
    They're fucking LYING is what they're doing.

    No "distortion".  Quit the "distortion" crap.  Call it what it is -- a LIE.

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

  •  Reasons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    One wonders why the never-ending bashing of Dems in the sense of not having address other facets of a story.  On poster upthread referred to the "lazy" school of journalism.  One could also see the Bush administration's riegn of terror towards journalists, threatening to withhold info or access as part of the problem.  But, if memory serves (which it may not after all), I seem to remember that the camps/bases that would house this long-term contingent of US military would be constructed by Halliburton subsidiaries.  If I could recall where I saw that, I would link it.  I am amazed how major papers, which have far more resources than other media entities, could simply ignore a very compelling story of government favoritism and corruption.  Hiding behind the same, six-year tired storyline bashing Dems after all this country has been through is indefensible. Once we have a Democratic administration, I'm sure they will rediscover their zeal for investigation.

  •  A couple of peeves. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, vickie feminist, ERyd
    1.  I am sick of the term "main stream media" & the acronym MSM.  The assembled Big Media have not been main or in the stream since Nixon 1968.  The entire process is a GOoPer joke, a satire on the idea that anything resembling journalism occurs.  To take down a Washington Post headline is similar to belittling the village idiot--what on Earth otherwise did you expect?
    1. The Military-Industrial Complex Media (MICMedia) or the Corporate Media (MediaInc) or the Industrial Media (Big Media) [as in Big Pharma & Big Oil & Big Banks] have an agenda that they play from.  The diary references this notion, however I would prefer that the concerted themes be the focus of the story & the comments.

    Impeach. Convict. Imprison. End this REIGN OF FAILURE.

    by whl on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:56:45 AM PDT

    •  Aargh, MSM is not an acronym but an abbreviation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Incidentally, "acronym" means "abbreviation pronounced as a word", like AIDS or laser or radar or GATT. MSM (wherein the individual letters are pronounced) is an abbreviation but not an acronym. This distorted use of the term is as annoying to me as "MSM" is to you.

      <end of one-man crusade>

      But more importantly:

      To take down a Washington Post headline is similar to belittling the village idiot--what on Earth otherwise did you expect?



      •  Initialism. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Pulling out the first alphabet characters of a name or a phrase is precisely an "initialism," and if the resulting combination is pronounced, sort of phonetically, it becomes a technical "acronym."  In common American English usage, however, "acronym" is almost always used interchangeably as a description for sequential style initializations of names & phrases.  If folks use the periods, M.S.M., it is more clearly an abbreviation.  I perceive & understand your preference.

        "Winston tastes good as a cigarette should."  Nah.

        "Sort of, kind of, would of--I mean would have."

        "Different from, different than . . . ."

        I sort of apologize, but the more common usages are more my personal style.

        Impeach. Convict. Imprison. End this REIGN OF FAILURE.

        by whl on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 05:50:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great reply (0+ / 0-)

          "Different from, different than . . . ."

          Oh yeah, another one in my book. I think I only pay attention to that because I'm a non-native. It's probably those three years of Latin.

          I sort of apologize, but the more common usages are more my personal style.

          That's pretty funny. I guess I'll take my crusade elsewhere. :O)

          But you're right: "acronym" is commonly used instead of "abbreviation".

    •  ummm...1968??????? (0+ / 0-)

      if woodward and bernstein, in 1973, were part of a repub media cabal, then I am much more confused than I thought I was.  I date the beginning of the kowtowing to 1980 or so.  but it gets worse every admin.

      Good news! Jimmy found the salt! C'mon by with some limes!

      by Van Buren on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 03:15:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah. (0+ / 0-)

        By 1973, the Washington Post was one of the last holdouts against the bullying tactics of Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell & Kissinger.  The Pentagon Papers + Daniel Ellsberg fiasco had a chilling effect on many regional newspapers who were aware that they did not have the money or the "standing" to fight the criminal Nixon administration.

        I'm working from memory here, but it seems that Dan Rather took a couple of hard shots at Nixon during a "presser" and Rather found himself at "60 Minutes" shortly thereafter.  Agnew's thuggery & his intimidation of reporters were notorious at the time.  Reporters were "re-assigned" from the White House beat, a la Rather, and the network TV news departments sanitized so much of the Viet Nam war coverage that even casual observors began to see the falsehoods.

        The early mergers of morning & afternoon newspapers & then the decisions that papers could also own radio & TV stations in the same market began the process of creating corporate media conglomerates that donated to & were benefited by the GOoPers.

        In 1972, the coverage of Sen. T. Eagleton, McGovern's VP choice, makes the swiftboating of Kerry look like name-calling at a Sunday school picnic.  Medical records were leaked, the White House guys known as the "ratfuckers" placed stories with regional media conglomerates & both Erlichmann & Haldemann could place leaks with every media market in the nation--through Lee Atwater, these folks are Rove's mentors.

        Yeah, there's a history here.  The conglomerates were not as large (not like ViaCom, AOL-Time-Warner, or whatever, Sony, etc.), but they bought & paid for politicians & then reported the right stuff when called upon.  It's a little bit helpful to recognize that Ben Bradlee, Woodward & Bernstein were & are often described as "turning on Nixon."

        Impeach. Convict. Imprison. End this REIGN OF FAILURE.

        by whl on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 06:12:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Definitely Maybe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tulip, Lying eyes, ERyd

    If you tried to disprove the WPost Statement of
    "no Republican is advocating that the United States maintain high troop levels indefinitely."

    by finding a Republican on record saying
    "I want to keep large amounts of U.S. troops in Iraq forever"

    Republicans would get a WPost article screaming that "forever" doesn't mean "indefinitely", it means "definitely forever". They say "flipfloppy Democrats are indefinite; Republicans aren't afraid of forever".

    If you got people talking about "strong, definite" Republicans' fear of timetables in Iraq, you'd get a WPost article about JonBenet Ramsey.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 11:59:13 AM PDT

  •  I would love to see someone (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dont Just Stand There
    take this piece up with Snowjob,

    Press-cient, "Mr. Snow, the WaPo is saying that "no Republican is advocating that the United States maintain high troop levels indefinitely.", which is news to us in the media. Would you care to comment about the troop reductions, or did the WaPo get the story wrong?"

    Snowjob, "Well, we have commented upon this before, and you can refer to those comments."

    Press-cient, "Ah, yes, the leave the withdrawal decision to his successors statement. I now presume that includes Republican successors, if any. Do we have a Republican abdication of responsibility on the Iraq problem as the WaPo indicates?"

    "The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers. " Jung

    by sailmaker on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:01:26 PM PDT

  •  Indefinite Definition (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tulip, nio, justmy2

    That's not the WPost distorting the Republican position, that's the new Republican position floating its trial balloons. The Republican Party is merely a PR agency for the corporations it represents. Its positions are defined by its ratings. The only consistency comes from the inability of its sponsors to adapt to new information, and the immutability of some values like racism, greed and lying.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:02:21 PM PDT

  •  The Post prints a lot of crap on its OP ED pages. (3+ / 0-)

    But the column on Sat that basically said to soldiers, hey its safer in Iraq than here, positively enraged me. Tell that to the families of dead and maimed soldiers. What idiot editor approved that column? As for the so-called authors of that column. If it so fucking safe why don't you enlist and go over?  

    •  Scorecard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Y'know how we Kossaks have those little +/- in the parens next to our headlines?  How about a similar grading code for columnists and reporters:  first symbol could indicate whether they've served or not; second could show whether their children have volunteered for the "cause."

      I'm SO sick of these Chickenhawks sending kids to be maimed and killed when they have NO concept of that reality.  I don't think military service makes one infallible, but it sure acquaints one with what war is really like.

      And BTW, where are you Colin Powell?

  •  Different interpretation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FoundingFatherDAR, Van Buren

    Then there is President Bush, who stated just last week that we will not be reducing troops "while I'm the president." That was just the latest statement from the administration and the Pentagon about indefinite troop deployments.

    My interpretation of that statement was that he has not a goddamn clue as to how to get out of this mess, and he's leaving the mess for someone else to cleanup - an obvious sign of helplessness and immaturity that millions of idiots will instead interpret as a sign of resolve, of "strong, steady leadership".

  •  david (0+ / 0-)

    the last month or so, you have taken this project of yours, extending your book to kos, into the stratosphere, in terms of relevance. you're now upon one of my altars. i salute you.

  •  wapo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    long ago jumped the couch. they even endorsed loserman's indie run- voters be damned! they're nothing but backslapping beltway enablers. if you're not on sally quinn's invite list, your opinion doesn't count!

    time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures - borges

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:38:42 PM PDT

  •  "Stay the course" chickenhawks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but none of them have volunteered to be the last person to die for a mistake.

    Support the Republican Party! Buy gasoline.

    by annefrank on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:43:42 PM PDT

  •  Democratic dithering lets WaPo finesse this... (0+ / 0-)
    If the Democrats has a stronger view of what to do in Iraq and would unite around an exit strategy such as those put forth by Jack Murtha, WaPo would NOT be able to get away with this.

    But the squishy Democratic positions do not draw enough of a meaningful contrast to the Republicans (beyond support for the president, which is insubstantive).

    So the Democrats have brought this on themselves. They are in the perfect position to be outflanked by the Republicans when they decide to throw Bush overboard. Chuck Hagel is charting the path...

    See the diary on now for a discussion of Hagel vs. Hillary Clinton's positions on Iraq by intrepidliberal.

    The danger from Democratic ditehring on Iraq is extremely dangerous to the Party (in addition to its real life damaging consequences for Iraq and all involved in that disaster).

  •  the strategy goes like this (0+ / 0-)

    encircle the muslim world, the so-called 'crescent of instability', which also happens to be the crescent of oil--the largest remaining deposit.

    assert power in a forward manner. prevent potential rivals, to whit china and russia, from gaining a controlling influence in the area. situate ourselves to broker the exhaustion of the oil supply, which is coming.

    here's a problem we on the left have: arguing that we do not have a vital national interest in inserting ourselves into this equation is as productive as flossing astroturf. the united states economy is utterly and completely beholden to ready supplies of oil, and central asia is the future thereof.

    a truly great game is on, and as much as i despise the bush administration, we sometimes find ourselves stuck in profoundly idealistic and unworkable stances based on a contempt for the machiavellian nature of politics in the state system.

    i'm not sure i'm making sense. guess i'll keep coming back.

    •  Oil :does Bush steal it or buy it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Emory Walker

      Wouldn't iT have been CHEAPER FOR aMERICA TO buy THE G@#$D@^N OIL AT FAIR MARKET PRICE?

      fair market: 250 billion over the next 10 years.

      Bush's way :fiasco of a war at 500 billion and counting, plus 2,617 killed US 120,000 Iraqis,and 80 billions spent unaccounted for. A trillion dollars for "force protection" while the PSAs concocted by and for Cheney's crew  and Exxon Mobil and the rest get fat and RICH off the taxpayers with a huge freebie.

      What does the "left" have to say about that?  "Eeeeee...lets nuke Iran?  Let's...not!" puuuuhleeeze? Monkey or Parrot the reThugs?

      How about a cold -blooded fact based statement of just what the Republican plan of indefinite occupation is COSTING the American people and another policy to be determined WHEN the Democrats take over?  

      OK............ Next!

      by Pete Rock on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 03:44:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok dude (0+ / 0-)

        here's what i'm trying to say: do you believe that china or russia will be honest and effective brokers of the world's known oil reserves. if you do, that's fine. i simply disagree.

        that is not to say that the iraq adventure served this interest at all. but we need to remember the oil embargo in the 70's, which prompted the u.s. to consider outright seizure of the saudi fields.

        for the sake of humanity writ large, we need to make sure that kind of crisis doesn't come again.

        •  OK,understand your point. long post (0+ / 0-)

          let me summarize: it isn't exact, but here is the gist:
          "we, as Democrats have to decide if we line up behind the oil companies like ExxonMobil and Conoco,Texaco,Halliburton,Schlumberger,Gulf Atomic,Hess or ....BP,Shell,Fina or.. Gazprom    Cinex,  or.... whatever China's export oil development group is."

          That's it? those are the only choices?

          You sound like someone who has swallowed the Lee Raymond mantra(ex head of ExxonMobil/40 billion in profits expected this year) that America for the next twenty to twenty five years will be UNABLE to materially change the equation of importing more and more oil.From 55 % up to 65% with no end in sight.

          That way lies devastation and great stress leading to more war to redivide markets and continued supply.

          And that is the same guy from the same company that told Cheney along with bush in 2001 what his group needs done.  Regardless of the cost in blood and if we still have a Republic with a functioning democracy at the end of their project.

          To those people  real democracy yes or no? that is a trivial distinction.  We are irrelevant.   So where do we go from here?  Thinking small and along the worn out trail that JAPAN faced (another country that was forced to import huge amounts of oil to keep its economy running) means more and more imperialist style wars. For them, there is no other option.

          Unless we can come up with one that Carter,Gore and thousands of others have been making but with  faint voices thanks to the Oil Trust that is much more powerful than it was at the end of the 19th century.

          Mr Raymond got 400-420 million in hush money("pension") for his role in the redivision of oil markets scheme of which the Iraq war fiasco is but a step along the way.

          we as Americans are MORE than pawns in the oil company schemes to aggregate and engotge themselves to infintely increasing profits while aborting all alternatives to their market constraints and rigging.

          That's my message.  Throw down a challenge and see who is left standing.  You are free to take your cap in your hand and beg their oil shill highnesses to tell you what to do about THEIR problem of limiting markets and keeping the oil addiction going at full speed.

          OK............ Next!

          by Pete Rock on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 06:39:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  rant mode off (0+ / 0-)

            nothing intended other than delivering point of view.
            can be overly intense, or taken that way. Skip the last paragraph. doesn't really apply ,it should HAVE BEEN CUT (TOO inciteful) for this thread.

            OK............ Next!

            by Pete Rock on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 08:11:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  if only (0+ / 0-)

              you would have a conversation instead of waging blitzkrieg. ok dude, you're totally right. i was writing to advance the oil company line. . .

              see, i thought i was considering the fact that we can't change the basis of the economy overnight. silly me. if only we'd all lined up behind nader, right? there's an easy solution to this, i suppose. just do what you say, think like you think, right?

              i even fancied that i was concerned about the massive harm wrought on this country's underclass by even this minor disruption. . .that even as low as my regard for this administration is, i still prefer it to the machinations of the russians and the chinese. damn, what is my hang-up. i just can't brook the notion that those nations might dictate the terms under which we obtain energy in the transition to alternatives.

              i accept your apology for what it was. that said, the first rule of effective discourse is to make sure not to dilute your received truths with too much vitriol, which will render the most compelling case completely unpalatable.

              that and get out of the house more, maybe.

              •  Energy problems , Recognition of core problem (0+ / 0-)

                 The transition to "selfsufficiency", alternate energy sources and making those things a national priority go back to before Carter (YomKippur war, rationing "oddeven" days for gas purchases...)

                And in each crisis, each instance the oil companies bowed to the outrage and pressure, kept their heads down and their lobbyists very busy and spun off "studies" and a conservation/solar program , EER ratings, etc etc...and within a few years slowly strangled those programs thru defunding and hiring the easily bribed politicians.

                 Three crises in the last 30 years led to Shale oil project?  Syncrude?  and a host of others which were choked off after initial fanfare. they even extended unjustifiable tax breaks and reduced royalty payments cheating the public out of any fair compensation for taking public resources(oil found on public lands).

                 The first problem we have is to clearly see these companies are the most dangerous, selfish, self serving pack of thieves and a menace to our survival as a world class country and civilization.

                 They need to be brought to heel and broken as leaders and independent entities.  Their need is for cheap oil, thus taking it wherever, and it happens to be in the MidEast as the cheapest source by far. Alternatives are beaten down by the corruption starting in Washington and back and forth in the board rooms of the oil trust. This is so important.

                  Every other country controls energy supplies and production, innovation, distribution as a state monopoly or close to it. The consequences of allowing one band or another of cowboys and speculators to do it exclusively as is done in the USA is too risky and disruptive...even suicidal.

                 Energy and health are too important to be left up to Wall Street and the insiders and their cronies.
                And last I looked China was a net energy importer as we are,and the Russians are begging for investment and partners in their extraction industry.  The middle East of course must not be allowed to manage their own resources. (snark) they are too brown or not christian enough or not smart enough or something,right?

                OK............ Next!

                by Pete Rock on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Ken Melhman said we will stay (0+ / 0-)

    to protect Iraq's oil from the terrorists.


    Iraq supports Iran and we will stay to keep Iran from getting their oil and becoming even stronger.

    This war has been about Iraq's oil and the rest is all bullshit.

    The fact of the matter is, Iran won the Iraq and Lebanon war. They are united and we are divided.

  •  It's not indefinite... (0+ / 0-)

    it's just until the oil runs out.

    Republicans are great at politics but terrible at policy

    by aprichard on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 01:31:40 PM PDT

  •  Usefull disclaimers (0+ / 0-)

    Seeing that quote ("No Republican is advocating that the United States maintain high troop levels indefinitely") reminds me of the days when reporters actually used to put some context into their stories. It would be nice if the Post could start putting in some useful, informative, and reality-based disclaimers into their stories, as appropriate. Here are some suggestions:

    • Actually, even President Bush has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was not justified as a response to 9/11 or terrorism in general.
    • ... said the stay-and-sink Republican.
    • No evidence link has been shown between fighting them over  there and not having to fight them over here.
    • By any reasonable measure, democracy is not winning in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
    • The photo op was highly staged and tightly scripted. What, you thought for once they weren't playing you for a sucker?
    • The President has never shown such compassion when the video cameras aren't rolling.
    • That was your father's Oldsmobile, and he's gonna be pissed when he finds out.

    Lying about WMDs changed everything.

    by Nowhere Man on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 01:43:33 PM PDT

  •  The Post Can't Get Up Off Her Knees (0+ / 0-)

    I really don't know what's happened to the Post.  It was once the best newspaper in the United States, possibly in the world.  Today they were so proud of themselves for removing their ads for massage parlors, I made them #6 in my new weekly 'Put On Notice' series ala Stephen Colbert:

    6. The Washington Post. What a bunch of hypocrites. They have removed ads from their classified sections that may promote massage parlors. They don't want to enable prostitution. That'd be all fine and good if they weren't such corporate whores, willing to take money from every fat cat on the street while blathering us into an unecessary war because they couldn't be bothered to fact-check. The Post is a shadow of its former self, and its integrity is badly shattered since Bob Woodward's involvement in the Valerie Plame case. Another icon shattered. But hey, at least the Washington Post isn't helping pimps and hookers anymore, right? I guess they don't want the competition.

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 03:25:42 PM PDT

grytpype, pontificator, nitpicker, claude, Alumbrados, Angry White Democrat, MichaelPH, Donna Z, DeminNewJ, TXdem, pb, Emory Walker, IseFire, taylormattd, Iddybud, Hornito, TaraIst, tiggers thotful spot, nihilix, Winger, Lahdee, Shockwave, Stein, GayHillbilly, Beet, HarveyMilk, theran, musicsleuth, exNYinTX, zeitshabba, angryandy, HStewart, Cecrops Tangaroa, km4, bronte17, macdust, wonkydonkey, jiffykeen, peace voter, boilerman10, mrblifil, luaptifer, roses, chechecule, Frederick Clarkson, JuliaAnn, bincbom, Mauimom, mayan, caseynm, danthrax, missliberties, Nina, besieged by bush, BMarshall, Black Maned Pensator, Sychotic1, kismet, Democratic Hawk, walkshills, bwintx, Panda, paisa, DrReason, sfluke, kd texan, bibble, We hold these truths, rickroks, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, madaprn, chumley, Pokerdad, farleftcoast, PDiddie, jfdunphy, Sam I Am, docangel, LarisaW, subtropolis, Chinton, Halcyon, Erik the Red, Jashugan, fedupinca, boofdah, bjhunt, calderonn, annefrank, QuickSilver, Phil S 33, SheriffBart, Natalie, flernk, Shotput8, wiscmass, Rogneid, JanL, markt, cloverdale, JanF, Land of Enchantment, accumbens, Mehitabel9, tjhunter1234, occams hatchet, Shirley P, dannyinla, atdnext, Job52, BlueInARedState, leo joad, Curlew, ActivistGuy, buhdydharma, theyrereal, Tao, isis2, Irishkorean, arbiter, everhopeful, vickie feminist, imabluemerkin, Everest42, CTLiberal, Turbonerd, Pete Rock, va dare, BB10, means are the ends, kurt, Snarcalita, Temmoku, One Pissed Off Liberal, beaukitty, carolinacal, dotsright, Cronesense, whl, Harmonious, Tailspinterry, Mr Met, TtexwiTyler, Flirtin with Disaster, newhorizon, Frothy Gillster

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site