A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...20.html?sub=AR

An interesting perspective, and some pithy one liners as usual. The early paragraphs:

"There is no mistaking the anguish of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Sitting in his Senate office, he is uncharacteristically subdued, his voice at times almost inaudible.

"Although the Bush administration this week finally embraced his long-standing call to send more troops to Iraq, McCain believes the way it has handled the war "will go down as one of the worst" mistakes in the history of the American military.

"One of the most frustrating things that's ever happened in my political life," he said, "is watching this train wreck."

McCain, an all but announced presidential candidate, offered those assessments toward the end of a lengthy interview Thursday night. No politician in the United States is more clearly identified with President Bush's new policy, and no politician has more to lose if it fails. Democratic opponents have already coined a name for the troop "surge": the McCain Doctrine.

"McCain made it clear that he supports Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq as the only way to prevent that country from slipping further into chaos. "I cannot guarantee success, but I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy," he said.

"But he also voiced deep frustration over what the war has done, both to this country and to Iraq. "I think many things that have happened in the world that are unfavorable to the United States are the result of our weakness in the Iraqi conflict," he said.

2

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Did they block it pre-takeover or post? My guess is pre, which means business as usual in the land of the hyps.

Lemme make sure I've got this right. Your guess is that Frist's Senate got lots of K Street press, sure, but what Frist REALLY wanted to do, in his heart of hearts, was institute reform. But Reid, that motherfucker, wanted nothing of it, and blocked reform until the Dems were in the majority?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cartoons

When did Pelosi say that the Iraq Study Group's proposals would be a "disaster"? When did she characterize those proposals as "abandoning Iraq"?

Not to question the accuracy of anything reported in a neocon Republican cartoon, of course.

Though I do wonder that anyone cannot grasp the notion that, just because Shinseki was right that we needed 350,000 troops at the beginning of the war in order to have any hope of securing Iraq and supporting a stable government, does not mean that Bush is right that adding 20,000 troops now (bringing the total to, what -- 140,000?) will have the same effect.

One wonders -- do neocons recommend fastening your seatbelt after the car crashes?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
"Although the Bush administration this week finally embraced his long-standing call to send more troops to Iraq, McCain believes the way it has handled the war "will go down as one of the worst" mistakes in the history of the American military.

"One of the most frustrating things that's ever happened in my political life," he said, "is watching this train wreck."

"I think many things that have happened in the world that are unfavorable to the United States are the result of our weakness in the Iraqi conflict," he said.

Doesn't he know that oil prices are down and most of Iraq is thriving?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When did Pelosi say that the Iraq Study Group's proposals would be a "disaster"? When did she characterize those proposals as "abandoning Iraq"?

Not to question the accuracy of anything reported in a neocon Republican cartoon, of course.

Though I do wonder that anyone cannot grasp the notion that, just because Shinseki was right that we needed 350,000 troops at the beginning of the war in order to have any hope of securing Iraq and supporting a stable government, does not mean that Bush is right that adding 20,000 troops now (bringing the total to, what -- 140,000?) will have the same effect.

One wonders -- do neocons recommend fastening your seatbelt after the car crashes?

I keep reading these conservatives telling people that Gen. Petreaus (sp?) is a counterinsurgency expert and that he ought to be given a chance to try his ideas out before we give up. But they seem to ignore what he's written about how many troops you need to do the job -- we're nowhere near the necessary number.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You really think nothing has changed over the last four years?

What are you talking about?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When did Pelosi say that the Iraq Study Group's proposals would be a "disaster"? When did she characterize those proposals as "abandoning Iraq"?

You can't even read a cartoon correctly. Reread it. The Cartoon claimed she AGREED with the Iraq study group that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Not to question the accuracy of anything reported in a neocon Republican cartoon, of course.

Sarcasm based on stupidity. You are like watching a train wreck.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Though I do wonder that anyone cannot grasp the notion that, just because Shinseki was right that we needed 350,000 troops at the beginning of the war in order to have any hope of securing Iraq and supporting a stable government, does not mean that Bush is right that adding 20,000 troops now (bringing the total to, what -- 140,000?) will have the same effect.

One wonders -- do neocons recommend fastening your seatbelt after the car crashes?

So the solution then was more troops and the solution now is less troops? Criticizing a policy without offering an alternative is as pathetic as political posturing can get. Can you tell me what Pelosi's solution to the problem in Iraq is? Can you tell me what Reid's is? And if you can, can you tell me why you agree with their positions?

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't even read a cartoon correctly. Reread it. The Cartoon claimed she AGREED with the Iraq study group that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster.

If the demo's were serious about stopping Bush, they could refuse to pass a budget and just shut down the entire US government, until Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq. Politicians like Bush and Clinton don't respond to arguments, they respond to bare knuckles.

Opposite wise, if the Republicans had been serious about putting enough troops into Iraq, they could have shut off spending for troops stationed elsewhere, like Korea where they do nothing except provide North Korea hostages.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't even read a cartoon correctly. Reread it. The Cartoon claimed she AGREED with the Iraq study group that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster.

My bad -- I just don't give right-wing cartoonists their proper due.

So, the point of the cartoon is that Pelosi is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL, because she agreed with the Iraq Study Group that we should not "abandon" Iraq ..... and because -- in a shocking display of hypocrisy -- she also agreed with the Iraq Study Group that we should do a whole lot of things that do NOT include a surge?

Got it.

So the solution then was more troops and the solution now is less troops? Criticizing a policy without offering an alternative is as pathetic as political posturing can get. Can you tell me what Pelosi's solution to the problem in Iraq is? Can you tell me what Reid's is? And if you can, can you tell me why you agree with their positions?

Sending a lot more troops initially might have avoided some of the disaster that this policy has been. At least, some generals thought so (you know -- the ones Bush fired). Instead, because there were not enough troops, the insurgency flared, and then the civil war started. And now we are just standing between the combatants in the civil war, trying to to prop up one side. In that role, US troops become a focal point for attacks, and become a crutch for a government that is part of the problem. So, a handful of more troops, and a continuing indefinite commitment, will only perpetuate this problem.


Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that what might have helped at some point may not necessarily help four years later? I can understand disagreeing with that -- but you pretend that anyone taking that position is a liar.




As for alternatives -- well, one place to start would be with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Unfortunately, like Bush, you want to attack people for not proposing alternatives when, in reality, they just are not proposing alternatives THAT YOU LIKE.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky

So the solution then was more troops and the solution now is less troops?

Um. Yeah. How is that hard to understand?

I mean, I know that it is fun politics to point at supposed "inconsistency" as though it is meaning commentary, but isn't it just posible that the opportunity that we had then doesn't exist anymore? That maybe four plus years of American inability to provide basic security has led to a crisis that we can no longer solve?

Look, this whole enterprise was a huge gamble from the start. In order to have any shot, we need to go the Shineski route, rather than buy into the Rumsfeld light-and-fast dogma. In failing to do so, we made our chances of democracy and freedom by force even weaker. Whatever they were then, they are entirely gone now. Therefore there is no inconsistency between believing that we needed a heavier fullprint then, and a lighter one now.

But I have a hard time believing that you can't see that, and instead think you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
If the demo's were serious about stopping Bush, they could refuse to pass a budget and just shut down the entire US government, until Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq. Politicians like Bush and Clinton don't respond to arguments, they respond to bare knuckles.

Opposite wise, if the Republicans had been serious about putting enough troops into Iraq, they could have shut off spending for troops stationed elsewhere, like Korea where they do nothing except provide North Korea hostages.

Right, cause lots of politicians want to be directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. Nor should they.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Adder
Right, cause lots of politicians want to be directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. Nor should they.

Nonsense. The Demo's want to stay in Iraq because if the troops are there in 2008, the Demos will get a Demo president and a stronger majority in Congress. They want that, and the entire Congress Repub and Demo is run by wimps without the balls to give Bush a smackdown.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Um. Yeah. How is that hard to understand?

I mean, I know that it is fun politics to point at supposed "inconsistency" as though it is meaning commentary, but isn't it just posible that the opportunity that we had then doesn't exist anymore? That maybe four plus years of American inability to provide basic security has led to a crisis that we can no longer solve?

Look, this whole enterprise was a huge gamble from the start. In order to have any shot, we need to go the Shineski route, rather than buy into the Rumsfeld light-and-fast dogma. In failing to do so, we made our chances of democracy and freedom by force even weaker. Whatever they were then, they are entirely gone now. Therefore there is no inconsistency between believing that we needed a heavier fullprint then, and a lighter one now.

But I have a hard time believing that you can't see that, and instead think you are being intentionally obtuse.

No. Basically what you are saying backs up what I am saying. You believe we have absolutely no chance in Iraq so we should give up. That is why you said "That maybe four plus years of American inability to provide basic security has led to a crisis that we can no longer solve?" So you believe the window of opportunity is closed.

Following your train of logic we should pull out immediately right now. Why stay and do anything if we don't have a chance of winning? So if you thought that we had a chance before but don't have a chance now, then having more troops then, and pulling them out now makes perfect sense.

However, most of the Democrats that are arguing for the pull down are not saying we have no chance. Pelosi and Reid have not come out and said that we have no chance of succeeding. So their positions don't make any sense.

I, like most people still think there is a chance of success, so if you come from that position, what they are saying is complete inconsistent gibberish. If there is a chance of success, and you believe that it is important that we succeed, then their positions defy logic.

If more troops could have helped us succeed before, then why won't more troops help now?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch



As for alternatives -- well, one place to start would be with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Unfortunately, like Bush, you want to attack people for not proposing alternatives when, in reality, they just are not proposing alternatives THAT YOU LIKE.

OK what proposals did they proffer, or that Reid and Pelosi have proferred, that you think would dramatically increase our chances of succeeding?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If more troops could have helped us succeed before, then why won't more troops help now?

If closing the barn door would have helped before, why won't it help now?

Fred Kaplan in Slate:

• The Army's recently published field manual on counterinsurgency—co-authored by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, soon to be the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq—emphasizes that these sorts of campaigns need early successes to inspire confidence in the local populace, who will be watching carefully and taking sides accordingly. The manual also notes that successes, in general, require a massive superiority in manpower. To escalate, er, surge gradually (which may be all that's physically possible), works against our prospects from the get-go.

More troops were needed initially to keep a lid on things. That is decidedly not their mission now.

An argument against the surge is that political reconciliation between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis as long as we're there.