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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do these guys think they are reading Patreus's mind and really know what he is thinking? Even if they think he is lying what gives them the temerity to think they know what he really wants? And why do they think he doesn't really want the troops? In what management class did they learn to put some in charge but tie his hands on the job? Maybe it would make sense to complain about who the president puts in charge, but to support this man taking over, and then question his requests is just pure stupidity.

If you think Petraeus just up and asked for this and was given exactly what he wanted, you don't understand the process.

The Administration decided what policy to follow and then decided who should be in charge to execute it. No doubt they asked Petraeus' thoughts after they picked him -- but to put it quite bluntly three star generals don't set policy.

[eta: It is entirely possible that, as you say he said (I didn't see the testimony), he was told to develop a detailed plan to accomplish the following ends using available resources (between X and Y), so he did, and they approved it.]

Moreover, things are no doubt different with Rummy gone, but check any number of recent books -- including Woodward's to see how this Administration handled the whole issue of input from the uniformed commanders. (There was damn little. Rummy filtered everything and decided what to tell the President and how.)

It is possible he wanted more than 21K, or would ideally like more, but is working with what he has because the military can't really afford to send more without upsetting a huge number of apple carts. McCain's quote was that Petraeus told him "ghe thought he could get the job done" with 21K.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
How can you possibly argue that he is the right man for the job but the main strategy he is proposing is instrinsically flawed. I am not sayig he is all powerful or infallible, I am just saying that is ridiculous to say he is the right man for the job but then question either his strategy or his ethics.

Because the plan is influenced by outside factors. He can be the right man for the job, even if the job is doomed because the plan does not go far enough. Or if the plan serves a policy that is likely to fail.

In sum, the plan and the man are not concentric, you know.

What you are saying is that these Senators know better what military strategy is good for Iraq than the military man that they believe is best suited for the job.

No. What I am saying is that when Bush calls up Petreus, he says, "General, I need to you come up with a plan to brings peace and stability to Iraq, and you need to do it without a major committment of more forces."

Then the General makes a plan.

He can still be the man best suited to the job even if the job is undoable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's not fair. The president's Iraq policy was not designed or entered into for partisan ends.

In fact, it was a huge political risk (much bigger than they realized) which has now come home to roost in large part because they fouled it up almost beyond their wildest fears.

That is not to say that the Adminsitration and the GOP haven't tried hard to and succeeded in using the war and national security issues for their own political gain -- to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. However, the President's Iraq policy -- including particularly the handling and execution post-invasion was anything but poll-driven.

(See Woodward's book depicting the President resolutely staying the course for two years as bad news mounted and his numbers dropped.)

Since 9/11, the Republicans consistently tried to use national security to partisan ends, from the posturing of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, to Bush's invitation of NY Republicans but not Democrats to his photo op at Ground Zero, up to the effort to stage a vote on torture last fall before the election. I cannot think of one instance during this time when Republicans took a political risk on national security; instead, it was a series of efforts to use national security as a wedge issue. Nor can you, apparently.

Spanky recently accused the Democrats of opposing a way they really support for political reasons. Here's an instance where they are obviously sacrificing political attacks against Republicans like Norm Coleman and John Warner in order to get their support to try to get the President to change course.

[Diane_Keaton]

....but if you haven't seen Letters from Iwo Jima, get out there before it's out of theatres. The movie's great and you will have a mancrush on Watanabe.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
....but if you haven't seen Letters from Iwo Jima, get out there before it's out of theatres. The movie's great and you will have a mancrush on Watanabe.

Is there particular reason to see it in the theater, or will it be just as enjoyable on DVD?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since 9/11, the Republicans consistently tried to use national security to partisan ends, from the posturing of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, to Bush's invitation of NY Republicans but not Democrats to his photo op at Ground Zero, up to the effort to stage a vote on torture last fall before the election. I cannot think of one instance during this time when Republicans took a political risk on national security; instead, it was a series of efforts to use national security as a wedge issue. Nor can you, apparently.

Bush did not invade Iraq for political reasons

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky recently accused the Democrats of opposing a way they really support for political reasons. Here's an instance where they are obviously sacrificing political attacks against Republicans like Norm Coleman and John Warner in order to get their support to try to get the President to change course.

The Democrats are not "trying to persuade". If they were trying to persuade they would do it through back channels. All they are doing here is undercutting Patreus's efforts which will make it less likely that he will succeed. If they really believed what Bush was doing was wrong they would cut funding. Instead they are making a public statement that has no other effect thant to undercut our moral and boost their moral.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Because the plan is influenced by outside factors. He can be the right man for the job, even if the job is doomed because the plan does not go far enough. Or if the plan serves a policy that is likely to fail.

In sum, the plan and the man are not concentric, you know.

Yes they are. Because he has said it is his plan. You can't put a man in a job (or you can if you are an idiot) but tell him that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Originally posted by Adder
No. What I am saying is that when Bush calls up Petreus, he says, "General, I need to you come up with a plan to brings peace and stability to Iraq, and you need to do it without a major committment of more forces."

Then the General makes a plan.

He can still be the man best suited to the job even if the job is undoable.

What the Democrats are doing is what they accuse Bush of doing. Micromanaging the war. A general has come forward with a plan, but instead of letting the general implement the plan, they are trying to interfere. They rationalize this by saying, "well it is Bush's plan and he is not a military man so it is OK to undercut Bush because Bush does not know what he is doing". The problem with that is Patreus has taken full ownership for the plan. So either Patreus is lying or the Senators are trying to micromanage strategy. But actually they are not micormanaging, they are just undercutting, because their resolution has no bindig effect. It's sole purpose is to gain political points, and unfortunately those who will pay the price for these points are the men and womn tasked with carrying out the plan.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you think Petraeus just up and asked for this and was given exactly what he wanted, you don't understand the process.

The Administration decided what policy to follow and then decided who should be in charge to execute it. No doubt they asked Petraeus' thoughts after they picked him -- but to put it quite bluntly three star generals don't set policy.

This is a plan very specific to Bagdad. This is almost micromanaing from a Liet. General's perspective - this is putting just twenty thousand troops (Liet. Generals general oversee a Corp - that is multiple divisions - this isn't even a division we are talking about). This plan verges on tactics. He has asked for the men and the Senate is passing a resolution questions a Lietenant General's plan for securing Bagdad.

[eta: It is entirely possible that, as you say he said (I didn't see the testimony), he was told to develop a detailed plan to accomplish the following ends using available resources (between X and Y), so he did, and they approved it.]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Moreover, things are no doubt different with Rummy gone, but check any number of recent books -- including Woodward's to see how this Administration handled the whole issue of input from the uniformed commanders. (There was damn little. Rummy filtered everything and decided what to tell the President and how.)

It is possible he wanted more than 21K, or would ideally like more, but is working with what he has because the military can't really afford to send more without upsetting a huge number of apple carts. McCain's quote was that Petraeus told him "ghe thought he could get the job done" with 21K.

S_A_M

Patreus is asking for more troops to secure Bagdad. There is absolutely no reason not to give him the troops unless you want him to fail. What other reason could there possibly be not to give him the troops. Or to pass a resolution saying he should not get the troops?

[Spanky]

Islam and the left

Dazed and confused
Jan 25th 2007
From The Economist print edition


AS A child Nick Cohen was not allowed to eat oranges from South Africa (apartheid), Spain (Franco's fascism), Israel (occupation) or Florida (his mother detested Nixon). He grew up on the left and assumed that the left stood on the moral high ground. Now he feels betrayed. Events since September 11th 2001, and especially since the invasion of Iraq, have persuaded this British newspaper columnist that the left has been turned upside down. Almost everywhere, he says, leftists are likelier than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements. The failure of socialism has freed the left “to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America.”

The particular target of this wide-ranging polemic is the recent unholy alliance between left-wing movements in the West and the right-wing bigotry of Islamic extremism. Mr Cohen was dismayed after September 11th when British commentators hinted that America had “had it coming”. His own editor at the New Statesman wrote a pernicious editorial musing that the American bond traders who perished in the twin towers were less innocent than Vietnamese or Iraqi victims of terror because they lived in a democracy yet had chosen to vote for George Bush instead of Al Gore (although, as Mr Cohen observes, Osama bin Laden had declared war on America long before, when Bill Clinton was president).

The reaction to September 11th was bad enough. Worse came with the approach of the Iraq war. Mr Cohen was bemused at the anti-war protests around the world in February 2003, in which millions of supposedly liberal-minded people marched in order, as he puts it, “to oppose the overthrow of a fascist regime”.

He concedes that a case could be made against the war on the grounds of legality, the human cost, unforeseen consequences and so forth. But few of the marchers seemed to take any account at all of the near-genocidal nature of Saddam's rule. Afterwards, moreover, even those who had opposed the war could have taken the side of Iraq's would-be democrats. The left chose instead to ennoble as a “resistance” the jihadists and Baathists who continue deliberately to slaughter thousands of civilians in the hope of creating a right-wing theocracy or restoring dictatorship.

It is, in the author's word, all disgraceful, and a profound betrayal of the values—anti-fascism and support for the underdog—which the mainstream left had at its best instinctively upheld. If Mr Cohen's aim is to discomfort the many whose self-righteous resentment of Mr Bush and Tony Blair has dulled their moral judgments, he succeeds brilliantly. He is less successful in explaining why they have reacted this way. Is it a scared refusal to see Islamist terrorism for the implacable, irrational enemy it is? Is it a deep-seated anti-Americanism? Whatever the cause, Mr Cohen predicts confusion ahead. “The time will soon come when the liberal-left's escape routes will close, George W. Bush, their bogeyman, will be gone and they will be all alone in a frightening world without the enemy who has defined them and held them together for so long.” You get the feeling that he can hardly wait.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Islam and the left

Dazed and confused
Jan 25th 2007
From The Economist print edition


AS A child Nick Cohen was not allowed to eat oranges from South Africa (apartheid), Spain (Franco's fascism), Israel (occupation) or Florida (his mother detested Nixon). He grew up on the left and assumed that the left stood on the moral high ground. Now he feels betrayed. Events since September 11th 2001, and especially since the invasion of Iraq, have persuaded this British newspaper columnist that the left has been turned upside down. Almost everywhere, he says, leftists are likelier than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements. The failure of socialism has freed the left “to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America.”

The particular target of this wide-ranging polemic is the recent unholy alliance between left-wing movements in the West and the right-wing bigotry of Islamic extremism. Mr Cohen was dismayed after September 11th when British commentators hinted that America had “had it coming”. His own editor at the New Statesman wrote a pernicious editorial musing that the American bond traders who perished in the twin towers were less innocent than Vietnamese or Iraqi victims of terror because they lived in a democracy yet had chosen to vote for George Bush instead of Al Gore (although, as Mr Cohen observes, Osama bin Laden had declared war on America long before, when Bill Clinton was president).

The reaction to September 11th was bad enough. Worse came with the approach of the Iraq war. Mr Cohen was bemused at the anti-war protests around the world in February 2003, in which millions of supposedly liberal-minded people marched in order, as he puts it, “to oppose the overthrow of a fascist regime”.

He concedes that a case could be made against the war on the grounds of legality, the human cost, unforeseen consequences and so forth. But few of the marchers seemed to take any account at all of the near-genocidal nature of Saddam's rule. Afterwards, moreover, even those who had opposed the war could have taken the side of Iraq's would-be democrats. The left chose instead to ennoble as a “resistance” the jihadists and Baathists who continue deliberately to slaughter thousands of civilians in the hope of creating a right-wing theocracy or restoring dictatorship.

It is, in the author's word, all disgraceful, and a profound betrayal of the values—anti-fascism and support for the underdog—which the mainstream left had at its best instinctively upheld. If Mr Cohen's aim is to discomfort the many whose self-righteous resentment of Mr Bush and Tony Blair has dulled their moral judgments, he succeeds brilliantly. He is less successful in explaining why they have reacted this way. Is it a scared refusal to see Islamist terrorism for the implacable, irrational enemy it is? Is it a deep-seated anti-Americanism? Whatever the cause, Mr Cohen predicts confusion ahead. “The time will soon come when the liberal-left's escape routes will close, George W. Bush, their bogeyman, will be gone and they will be all alone in a frightening world without the enemy who has defined them and held them together for so long.” You get the feeling that he can hardly wait.

the sad fact is that as the lefties are forced into submission, they will still be trying to find a way to blame bush. 20 years from now, when Paris falls- through a vote this time not a tank column- Ty@50 will post how it is all Bush's fault for unleashing the Islamic anger by invading Iraq.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes they are. Because he has said it is his plan. You can't put a man in a job (or you can if you are an idiot) but tell him that he doesn't know what he is doing.

You are a master of repetition and simplification.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
AS A child Nick Cohen was not allowed to eat oranges from South Africa (apartheid), Spain (Franco's fascism), Israel (occupation) or Florida (his mother detested Nixon).

Leaving aside the rest of the ridiculousness in that description, what does Nixon have to do with Florida?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush did not invade Iraq for political reasons

I tend to agree with you about this.

The Democrats are not "trying to persuade". If they were trying to persuade they would do it through back channels. All they are doing here is undercutting Patreus's efforts which will make it less likely that he will succeed. If they really believed what Bush was doing was wrong they would cut funding. Instead they are making a public statement that has no other effect thant to undercut our moral and boost their moral.

"No effect"? So your world, the Democrats are both undermining national security and not smart enough to do it in a way that gets them political benefit. You're harsh.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the sad fact is that as the lefties are forced into submission, they will still be trying to find a way to blame bush. 20 years from now, when Paris falls- through a vote this time not a tank column- Ty@50 will post how it is all Bush's fault for unleashing the Islamic anger by invading Iraq.

The only way they can even remotely justify the Senate resolution is separating the plan from Patreus and laying it at Bush's feet. Otherwise they are undercutting the military. The problem is that Patreus took full credit for the plan. His testimoney was unequivocal. So then they grasp at the fact that Bush gave him "parameters" so it is really Bush's plan. Even if Bush gave him parameters, the only parameters he might have given him is limiting the amount of troops he gets. That is why it is so ripe when they claim they are not interefering with the Generals plans, because Bush didn't give him what he wanted, when the only thing Bush might not have given him is more troops, and their way of fixing Bush's interference of giving him not enough troops, is to give him less troops. The resolution would only make sense if they requested that Patreus get more troops. So if they are saying Bush undercut the General's plan by not giving him enough troops, they are undercutting it even more by calling for less troops.

There is no way Patreus asked for less troops, therefore the Senate Resolution only undercuts Patreus in his very limited strategic goal (one a general certainly makes) to secure Bagdad. They know the resolution won't persuade Bush (expecially against the advice of his General) so the only possible purpose the resolution can serve is to demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy.

They can't claim Bush is not paying attention to the Generals, and they are, when they are amplyfying the only way Bush could possibly be undercutting his general.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty@50 will post how it is all Bush's fault for unleashing the Islamic anger by invading Iraq.

Remind your sock that they were angry at us before we invaded Iraq. See, e.g., WTC, the embassy bombings, the Cole, 9/11, etc.