"strung up" was a bit much. Strung up by their thumbs for the public to see would be sufficient.
Posted by Simp at November 29, 2006 02:05 AMI wonder if the worse the situation in Iraq gets, the more tempted the White House is to bomb Iran, or have Israel do it. After all, once Iraq has fallen completely apart, attacking Iran can't make things much worse, can it?
Posted by Marky at November 29, 2006 02:16 AMThe really intriguing story being reported in the South American and British media (but virtually ignored by American MSM) is the Bush family's recent purchase of a 100,000 acre ranch in a remote area of Paraguay.
With calls for impeachment growing louder, coupled with war crimes investigations to get underway next year, what better place for George Bush & family to "retire" to?
Posted by Christopher at November 29, 2006 02:21 AMBacevich is a master of the obvious. Yes, we will get the hell out of there. That is what all knowledgeable observers--eg. Murtha-- have been saying for what---about a year?---now. The Bush administration, being eternally blameless, must place the blame somewhere. Blaming the liberals for not cheering hard enough for the troops has not played well in Peoria, as evidenced by the recent election. So they will try to blame the hapless Iraqi "government" and "army" which are not actually a national government or army in any real sense of the words.
Posted by howard hughes blues at November 29, 2006 03:22 AMIt really is a dangerous thing for democracy when the public is sooooo stupid or gullible.
Ironic in the sense of "we invaded their country, destroyed it, killed hundreds of thousands of them, started all kinds of conflicts not previously there, and they didn't appreciate anything we did for them. Bastards!"
Nice to know stupidity seems to have a trickle down approach.
So, once again the Commander-in-Turd refuses to accept responsibility. Surprise, surprise. How predictable. Saddam Hussein, insurgents, Al Quaide, and now the Iraqis are the problem.
Posted by Judith at November 29, 2006 04:18 AMContingency planning. US Troops are being positioned nearer the capital to prepare for either of two missions: secure transition of leadership from Maliki to somebody else and to ASSURE transition of leadership to somebody else. Maliki doesn't need tea leaves to figure out he is being threatened. This is also a strategic concession to the Shia overrunning the country: prepare to evacuate Saigon--er, Bagdhad.
Posted by gtash at November 29, 2006 04:47 AMSecurity is ALWAYS the responsibility of the OCCUPIER.
Iraq is under Shia control and replacing the leader will change nothing.
Posted by mparker at November 29, 2006 05:03 AMIt amazes me, simply amazes me, how stupid our current administration thinks we the people are. We know that Iraq wasn't the Iraqis fault. They didn't send us engraved invitations to come to their country and rip it apart. No. We all know that the reason we went into Iraq was to control the oil. We all understand that 9/11, tragic as it was, was the excuse they needed. "Oh who can blame the poor country who has just been "attacked"?". But we didn't really finish what we started did we? We went into Afghanistan, where Bin Laden the supposed "mastermind" was and then we just sort of said, ah hah! There you have it we've toppled your current government and now...we must go over here where we really wanted to go and good luck with the whole surviving thing.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I am not for staying in Iraq to "git her done" but I am for not blaming people who had no choice in the matter and for making sure they have "non meddlesome" support to rebuild their lives. This is the only thing we can do that will ensure good relations, save lives, and save face.
Judge strikes down part of Bush anti-terror order
U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins found that part of the law, signed by Bush on September 23, 2001 and used to freeze the assets of terrorist organizations, violated the Constitution because it put no apparent limit on the president's powers to place groups on that list
"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists, an authority president Bush then used to empower the Secretary of the Treasury to impose guilt by association," said David Cole of the Washington-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
"The court's decision confirms that even in fighting terror, unchecked executive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible option,"
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-29T021821Z_01_N28295799_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-JUDGE-BUSH.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2
Posted by Judith at November 29, 2006 05:13 AMThe politicians are blaming the Iraqi's!
Yesterday bu$h blames Al Qaeda.
About a month ago Gen. Caldwell claimed the USA and Baghdad were working closely together.
10 days ago Abizaid said that Al Qaeda insurgents were pretty much under control by the Iraqi's.
WTF is going on? And who is in charge?
At least Rummy had a consistent lie going!
I wonder how Pickles is going to adjust to living with Condi...
Posted by tempus at November 29, 2006 05:48 AMBt th wllflly gnrnt lft wld hv s blv tht nc hrmns, pclvng ppl wr st pn by n rrsstbl rg t wllw n th bld f thr mslm nghbrs d t n ntmly ntrsn n thr dyllc blss. nc gn th lft hnrs th sqndrng f pprtnty nd th dvrng f ny wh wld dr ffr th pssblty f bttr ftr.
[Editor: ignore=off]bendejo, In the famous words of Kevin Tillman:
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
Our soldiers are dying and you have the nerve to tell us, "Once again the left honors the squandering of opportunity and the devouring of any who would dare offer the possibility of a better future".
What and who's opportunity are we exactly squandering? And who's future would be better?
Who we blamin' next, asks lil' Georgie? Saddam, Al Qaeda, and now those failed Iraqi peoples?. "To invade is human, to blame, divine". Or something.
Iraq had a functioning society with operating institutions under Saddam. Not democratic, not open, not transparent, not civil rights respecting, but functioning. Iraqis could buy food, go to school, do the laundry, and travel to see their relatives, which often included sunnis visiting shi'tes.
We blithely destroyed those institutions, without the consent of the Iraqis.
There was no order or security in Iraq from the day Bagdad fell. Chaos. Looting. Murder. "Stuff happens", remember? Without order, without institutions, fear of sectarian retribution and domination becomes very strong, as does the human desire to settle old scores.
Iraqis aren't utterly blameless for their ongoing civil war and what it might turn into---each Iraqi has free will, they are independent human beings, who can decide not to kidnap, torture and kill their fellow muslim co-citizens. If the sunnis and shi'a want to have a brutal fight over what sect will control their "country", that is indeed up to them.
But we foolishly put them into the pot, heaped on the fuel and started the fire, acting like we were doing them a big favor. Who gets the lion's share of the blame for the resulting stew?
I guess we'll chew on this little morsel of shit for the next 20 years, just like we did on the Vietnam debacle. Another little thing to divide our hopelessly divided country.
Posted by euzoius at November 29, 2006 06:08 AM
Absent Bush's acceptance of Responsibility for this horrible miscalculation (which will never happen), the American people, as a nation, need to close this mess and feel good about it. Maybe sad, but true. Blaming the Iraqis is the easiest way. The fact that the Bush Administration presided over the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destroyed the country's civilian infrastructure and has failed to secure the Iraq Oil Industry output makes US culpability for the current state pretty plain. But, and it is the big But, any and everyone, including the current president's father, knew that the idea of trying to force a democracy on a centuries old theocracy + a couple decades dictatorship was a fool's errand. George W. Bush took that fool's errand on. It is his fault. Not the Iraqis. But if we must blame the Iraqis for the failure of our government in order to leave, so be it. Bush can blame them for ruining his great initiative, and the US public can go about the business of getting rid of him and his failed Administration. We need to leave, now.
Posted by T2 at November 29, 2006 06:17 AMWell, Aesop said it first with his fable about the fox and the grapes. I knew it wouldn't be long before our country, like a three year old who has trashed his bedroom, decided to sleep somehwere else and let someone else do the clean up.
aimai
Al Maliki "wants Bush to accelerate the training of the army and police, fund more recruits and provide them with bigger and better weapons". This Maliki statement indicates that he has also noticed the lack of real military training on substantive weaponry that Bush is providing the Iraqis. Sorry, Al, Bush ain't gonna give you guys any real toys to play with.......ever. As a matter of fact, according to recent Pentagon reports, even our Army may not have any real toys for much longer.....the EID's and the sand have taken a toll on the heavy inventory.
Posted by T2 at November 29, 2006 06:32 AMBut the willfully ignorant left would have us believe that a once harmonious, peaceloving people were set upon by an irresistible urge to wallow in the blood of their Muslim neighbors due to an untimely intrusion on their idyllic bliss. Once again, the left honors the squandering of opportunity and the devouring of any who would dare offer the possibility of a better future.
Banditto, your ignorance apparently has no bounds. On top of that, you do have the right to comment on a war you have not served in. If you want to "offer the possibility of a better future" sign up with the Marines, you moron. Or would that interfere with your tea time?
"not have the right." Sorry, I was furious. How do you sleep at night, Benditto? Do you not realize you're an asshole? Why don't you post on Powerline, where your stupidity would be appreciated?
Posted by tempus at November 29, 2006 06:38 AM'How do you sleep at night, Benditto?'
Ignorance is bliss. Ask Benito.
Posted by Judith at November 29, 2006 07:12 AMDamn euzoius, fucking spot on!!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 29, 2006 07:59 AMBill "cat killer" Frist will not seek the presidency in 2008.
Shucks!
Posted by snark at November 29, 2006 08:05 AMUnfortunatly the "salve" of passing blame to feel good will not bring back the dead or stop the continued killing.
Posted by mparker at November 29, 2006 08:08 AMTwo comments, one on Iraq and another as a follow-up to the econ thread of yesterday...
If the people of Iraq want a civil war, we should let them have one. Here's an idea. Instead of us spending $8B a month there trying to promote peace and democracy, things they've shown a keen disinterest in, then we should withdraw the troops and let them kill each other to their hearts' delight. It's their party.
The GDP came out pretty strong today. Maybe the Fed did manage to create a soft landing. And the stagflation comment from the economic post yesterday is pure nonsense, since we don't have either a stagnant economy or inflation. Pretty much the exact opposite. The nation enjoyed the longest stretch of 3%-plus GDP EVER and has maintained one of the longest up cycles EVER. In addition, inflation is extremely tame. Check out the CPI and core CPI.
One of the threats is wage inflation, because the labor market is extremely tight and wage growth has been strong in recent quarters. The Fed is watching, according to Bernanke's comments yesterday.
Regarding the debt comments, it's just supply and demand. When interest rates fell the demand for credit increased. Money is still cheap on a historic basis.
Posted by muckdog at November 29, 2006 09:36 AMWith calls for impeachment growing louder, coupled with war crimes investigations to get underway next year, what better place for George Bush & family to "retire" to?
Posted by Christopher at November 29, 2006 02:21 AM
Hope they gots enough cake laid away to pay for all the mercs they're going to need to watch their back. Somehow I get the feeling that there will be a large posse looking for an opportunity to lay some shock and awe on the Putsches.
But the willfully ignorant left would have us believe that a once harmonious, peaceloving people were set upon by an irresistable urge to wallow in the blood of their muslim neighbors due to an untimely intrusion on their idyllic bliss. Once again the left honors the squandering of opportunity and the devouring of any who would dare offer the possibility of a better future.
Posted by Bendito at November 29, 2006 05:49 AM
Ah, Usama Ben Ditto comes back for some more reich wing propaganda dissemination.
Funny how it puts the words into its' straw man called the willfully ignorant left, while ignoring all of the lies it is spewing as a member of the willfully ignorant right.
Funny how it mentions a once harmonious, peaceloving people who were were set upon by an irresistable urge to wallow in the blood of their muslim neighbors. I'm not sure who or what it's referring to here. But I think that american soldiers watching and laughing at an Iraqi kid run behind their humvee for blocks just so he can get a bottle of water might stir up some urges in some occupied people who have been unjustly and illegally invaded. Maybe it's just me...
Once again the reich wing tries to spin away their illegal and unethical behavior and smears any who would dare question them.
Sad, really. But kinda fun to point out for all to see just how far Ben Ditto has its' head up its' anal sphincter.
Posted by (: Tom :) at November 29, 2006 09:45 AMMuckdog
The Iraqi people did not want to be invaded on false pretenses,
They did not ask to be killed in the hundreds of thousands.
They did not want an occupation or ask to have thier army disbanded.
They did not ask for putrid water and no electricity or to be unemployed or have their housed busted into by a foriegn military or have their citizens tortured or have their country looted.
Your great idea to "let em kill each other" is not an idea at all. It's what was made to happen by the actions of the fool sitting in the White House.
Oh yeah, and the economy is just doing great too, huh.
Sure it is.
Posted by mparkerf at November 29, 2006 10:31 AMRepublicans make me laugh. They are incessently using the word "responsibility" as a political rhetorical device to emphasize the need for
"individual responsibility" especially as compared to collective and societal responsibilities. Yet, on Iraq and so many other issues, Republicans like George Walker Bush are simply incapable of accepting responsibility for their own behavior, especially when it comes to accepting responsibility for what may well become one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.
While Bush and his Republican enablers are constantly searching around for a new source of blame, the fact remains: There is one person and one person only responsible for making the bone-headed decision to needlessly invade Iraq, all for no good reason and all based on lies. His name is George Walker Bush. He was the sole decision maker. It would be refreshing for Bush and his fellow Republicans to fess up and acknowledge the gross negligence and incompetence demonstrated by that terrible decision.
Posted by paco at November 29, 2006 02:24 PMWell parker, you're probably great at looking at history and drawing conclusions. But have you ever faced a decision about the future? In the stock market, we call that "looking at the right side of the chart." It's easy to look at the middle of the chart and predict what will happen next. But it's more difficult on the right side of the chart.
So much so, that pretty mucy every Democrat was convinced that Iraq had WMDs and supported Bush's invasion in 2003.
Ah, but now you're back to looking at the middle of the chart again.
Shame on you. Shame on all those Democrats who have flipped and flopped from their previous statements on Iraq.
And the economy is fine. But maybe it won't be when the Democrats take office in 2007. We can blame them for it then.
Posted by muckdog at November 29, 2006 03:09 PMSOP for the GOP - make a mess, blame it on everyone else. You just wait, they're already blaming the Democrats for not having gotten us out of the mess, and the new Congress doesn't even come in until next year (and Bush is still in the White House).
Anyway, it's all Clinton's fault. Or Lincoln's.
(PS. I'm really grateful that your comments use a verification method that I can read. On the other hand, I don't like it refusing to accept my real URL because it apparently doesn't believe in it.)
Posted by Avedon at November 29, 2006 04:42 PMMuckdog might want on check the actual votes on the Iraq Force Authorization---basically the only ones to vote against it were Dems, around half the caucus in both houses. They didn't believe the WMD lies, nor did Blix's team. Many people thought Bushco's story was bogus.
The great thing about "conservatives" is that they can't get either the future OR the past right.
I guess Muck is done with his false "concerned Dem" posts until the next election.
Posted by euzoius at November 30, 2006 06:20 AM