No one should misinterpret the original selection of Petraeus for this assignment.
Busch's pet, Raeus, fulfills his primary function: Propaganda. In the next administration, one hopes that the pet, Raeus, gets a demotion to corporal and gets to live on that for his retirement.
Posted by phidipides at August 30, 2007 09:35 AMThe White House has brought disfunction to a whole new level.
Posted by Brian Bell at August 30, 2007 09:38 AMYou know, this leak is totally suspicious - admin officials let it out because they were afraid the final report would be whitewashed? Uh huh. Strategic leaks are their MO, and this seems just a little too conveeenient. I wonder if it's related to the "dump Maliki, draft Allawi" push.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 09:39 AMSteve, your Vietnam Syndrome is showing.
Posted by peter at August 30, 2007 09:39 AMpetey, your "Syndrome" Syndrome is showing.
And may I say, it's rather silly looking, too!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 09:49 AMActually, Peter, I think that's Bush's Vietnam Syndrome showing.
Posted by Brian Bell at August 30, 2007 09:49 AMYou know, this leak is totally suspicious...
It is pretty weird. It essentially says: "BTB, Busch is going to lie about all of this come September."
Posted by phidipides at August 30, 2007 10:07 AMI also just read that Gates was completely in the dark over Bush's latest request for another 50 billion bucks for Iraq.
Posted by ann at August 30, 2007 10:11 AMpetey, your "Syndrome" Syndrome is showing.
Damn it coyote, I just spewed coffee on my freshly cleaned computer screen! LMAO!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 30, 2007 10:18 AMI'm not buying it. Petraeus is a dirty boots general and he's not interested in proving a point at the expense of soldiers lives. Call me crazy, but I'm not going to judge him until his September report.
Posted by Roy Batty at August 30, 2007 10:21 AMOh, you mean that: Democrats taking us into Vietnam then not fighting it to win, allowing Diem to be taken out and finally Democrats legislating our defeat through 33 different pieces of legislation in the early 70's. That Syndrome? The not inforcing the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty. Not following up on our commitment to the government of South Vietnam's defense through air power after our redeployment of the majority of our military. That Syndrome? Creating the image that the world cannot trust America's word. That we will honor our commitments. Not supporting our ally in Iran, allowing the Shah to be deposed. That Syndrome?
Or the lack of preparedness, lack of readyness that our military degenerated into after their loss of confidence and standing due to our defeat in Vietnam after we had virtually secured a stable South Vietnam in 1972. That Syndrome?
A defeat legislated by Democrats in Congress. Democrats one recent victory to antiwar types.
Posted by peter at August 30, 2007 10:25 AMAnd then there is Sadr putting his Mahdi Army on hold for six months. Interesting time frame, huh. Here's how Bush could play that: Any withdrawal within six months would leave our forces weakened just at the time Mahdi Army hits the streets again...chaos will follow. Any Dem plan to withdraw would therefore severely endanger American troops in combat..once again proving them traitors.
Helping Bush make his case for continued occupation can't be Sadr's plan, right? But keeping his troops from being blown up in some pre-withdrawal Shock and Awe murder spree by Bush would be a wise move. Or setting them up to dove-tail with Iranian troops in anti-US action if Bush bombs Iran could be good. I havn't seen much comment on this Sadr thing, it seems to be a pretty significant move to me....but why did he do it? Is he actually trying to make Iraq more peaceful so the US will leave?
Busch is going to lie
And we didn't already know that? What better way to manipulate the angle of the spin of their lies than to "leak" what the report "really" says, and get the public and bloggers to agree with them that Maliki should go and their new guy should get a couple more Friedman Units to see how it's working?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 10:43 AMomg Peter you've got to stop watching Fox news...
That we will honor our commitments...do you honestly believe the government of South Vietnam was any less impotent than the current Maliki government?
Not supporting our ally in Iran...our ally?...you mean our puppet! After the CIA engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran Mossadeq
Posted by Roy Batty at August 30, 2007 11:04 AMbusch is going to lie..has that man ever been honest about anything in his entire fucking life
Posted by dennis at August 30, 2007 11:10 AM...after we had virtually secured a stable South Vietnam in 1972.
Were you alive in 1972, did you read the news?
What fucking history book do you read peter?
American presence escalated and violence in Vietnam took off during Eisenhower's administration.
I'm not going to defend Johnson or McNamara.
I wonder if that was bu$h's message in his comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. Maliki's fate and Diem's might be identical.
The Nixon Doctrine was a failure. He decided to bomb Cambodia and keep it from the American people. Nixon was the one pulling out troops in 1972, but if I recall there was an election going on that year.
Funny thing peter, after all that fighting, death and destruction the Vietnamese just wanted their country back. No country that has been invaded would want less.
Yeah, Vietnam was stable in "72" alright, about as stable as Iraq is in "07"!!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 30, 2007 12:01 PMI guess we could have won in Vietnam if only pants-pissing cowards like peter (and Bush, Cheney, etc.) had served.
no more drivel from pants pissing peter until he posts from Iraq
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 30, 2007 12:48 PMPerhaps career military men and women are getting nervous that the Cheney Administration is truly going to jump the Whale Shark. Juan Cole has an interesting summary of recent articles declaring that Iran will be massively attacked before Sept. 21st.
Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11...
Now I know we've been hearing this sort of thing for at least a year. Perhaps it's time for declaration of an Apocalypse time unit of around a month, to describe the phenomenon.
Nonetheless, it can't simply be discounted as it would serve insane ambitions and perhaps give him the chance to declare martial law. A roundup of ALL the articles detailing suspicious facts on that subject have to be for a, probably already published, long Kos diary.
One of the commenters brought up the recent Valiant Shield exercises involving three carrier battle fleets.
One particular quote caught my immediate attention,
Presser said Valiant Shield is laid out to sharpen cooperation among U.S. forces and enhance their ability to detect, locate, track and engage units at sea, in the air, on land and in cyberspace under a range of mission areas.
In cyberspace?!?! Maybe the DICK's friendly relations with the big service providers entails more then merely SPYING on Americans. I can't think of a guy who would be happier with a chance of permanently taking out that pesky thing called the Internet tubes. What a lovely excuse! Why do I feel like I've just heard reports that Caesar has brought his legion back from years of soul-deadening, yet profitable for Caesar, slaughter in Gaul and has crossed some funny sounding river?
I don't think any of these neoclowns would look good in a toga. But Jeff Gannon/Guckert would probably find his job a lot easier.
Posted by DeminNewJ at August 30, 2007 01:03 PMDeminNewJ, the Navy's back down to only one carrier in the Gulf since the Enterprise relieved the other two and sent them home. And just this week, I read that the US (very quietly, apparently) released the Iranian diplomats we've been holding in Iraq for months. I think the Iran attack meme is a red herring, because if Bush does it, he's doing it totally without support from anyone anywhere - unless you consider chickenhawks "anyone." And who cares if France's new rightwinger is sucking up to Bush on this, he's just another "all hat, no cattle" poseur.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 01:47 PMIamcoyote points out the massive Iran invasion fleet is now leaving the scene. I remember when the entire blogdom was certain that having all this firepower in one place could only mean iminent war. Maybe we are a bit hysterical, although you can't really ever know what's going on with Bush. I guess the Navy is prudent to drill in areas it may have to operate in.
Posted by T2 at August 30, 2007 02:39 PMCoyote,
I tend to agree that it's posturing. That's why I suggested the new, Apocalyptic time unit. However, I thought the same thing, early on, about the absurd characterizations of Iraqi menace and mendacity and in many other cases of fascist talking points.. I will not discount any kind of insanity from the Likundiks in AEI, PNAC and the rest of the neoclowns. They literally, live in their own universe.
I just wanted to point out the apparent DoD fascination with "cyber" attacks and wonder, with some dread, about their relationship with the major communication corporations. The Internet is out best tool and their worst nightmare. Do NOT discount the menace.
Posted by DeminNewJ at August 30, 2007 02:40 PMDeminNJ, I don't underestimate anything the petulant Child-in-Chief might do, really, but he'll be without backup on Iran around the world, if he tries anything. And as "scary" as his threats sound, it's still nothing like the certainty I felt in Aug. 2002 when Cheney went on TV and started talking about Saddam and WMDs. It was already a done deal on 9/12, as we discovered later.
As for cyberterrorism, oh yeah! Anyone wanting to hurt us bad could cripple us economically with little effort. Something like that will come from China. Even though we should all assume everything we do is monitored by someone, I don't think the businesses who've moved all their stuff online would want ISPs to be charging people to visit their online stores. They'll do what they have to do to find better ways of making a profit out of the 'nets, 'cos that's what the do, but you can't profit if your customers can't visit. 'Course our free speech makes 'em nervous, but they haven't yet figured out a way to shut us up while still siphoning our money to big biz. Maybe soon, tho.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 30, 2007 03:15 PM