Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And yet you are not troubled by the fact that Bush's plan is an abject failure. Funny, that.

What is Kerry's plan this week? See that's why Kerry is behind. Anyone can be a critic, but what would he do differently and would he stick to his guns? Getting our allies to shoulder more of the burden is not a credible alternative. Pulling out in 6 months to 4 years, without tying that to success is not an option.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This e-mail to Sullivan is the single best thing I've read about the Killian memos/CBS fuss, a story I've given up on trying to sort out:

I read that, and my thought was, here's a guy who sopped up all of the anti-Bush blogorama over the last three years, exulting in the ratification it provided for his disgust, but now that Rather looks really silly, he wants to say "well, ain't it all a worthless mess."

Like I have said before - the fun is back in politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, the coverage of Iraq granted to us by the MSM shows an abject failure. But their cameras and reporters only seem to go to two or three neighborhoods. Funny that.

Actually, the main-stream media has gotten bored lately, and doesn't seem to be reporting on the story as much. But the CSIS work (originally commissioned by the Pentagon) is pretty disturbing:

PICK YOUR LEBANON. I've just come back from a joint CSIS/Brookings event titled "Has Iraq Reached A Turning Point?" The answer is "no." Somewhat absurdly in light of the findings being presented, they meant "turning point" as "turning point for the better." The audience, after hearing the opening remarks (which basically summarized the findings in this PDF file), wanted to know if we'd reached a bad tipping point. With that question on the table the three technocrats on our panel -- Michael O'Hanlon from Brookings, and Bathsheba Crocker and Frederick Barton of the CSIS Postconflict Reconstruction Project -- suddenly seemed to lose faith in the concept of tipping points. All hope is not lost, they assured us, though there's a need to "manage expectations" in light of the negative turn of the past six months.
O'Hanlon described his new best-case scenario thusly: "It would be success to simply not let things get worse, and to simply train Iraqi security forces so that they can take it over in two or three years." Iraqi forces wouldn't be taking over a liberal democracy after that two or three years of continued American warfare. They wouldn't even be taking over an especially stable country. Instead he "hopes we can put this on a trajectory like Lebanon," except without the long years of civil war that proceeded the current state of affairs in that country. In other words, "if we can keep it as one of the two or three most violent places in the Middle East but at least on a long-term trajectory toward stability, that's acceptable."

To even meet this not-very-auspicious goal a lot of things need to happen that I don't particularly expect to see. O'Hanlon thinks we need to make sure elections go forward with some semblance of normalcy even in the Sunni Triangle. I just don't see how that can be achieved, and I don't think that even the elections elsewhere will live up to expectations. You hear a lot of things like "of course it won't be Switzerland," and of course it won't. But it's also not going to be up to the standard of, say, Ukraine or even Tajikistan. Switzerland is a red herring. He also thinks we need to disclaim any interest in a long-term military presence in Iraq or in control of Iraqi oil by U.S. companies. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's some kind of oversight on the part of the Bush administration that's prevented them from taking those steps. They haven't disclaimed an interest in those things because they are interested in them.

At any rate, that's the best case. The worst case, as everyone's been saying for a while, is a Lebanon-style civil war except in a bigger country with more oil adjacent to a hostile Iran that's rapidly moving toward possession of nuclear weapons. These are not, I remind you, highly partisan left-wingers or peaceniks. O'Hanlon supported the war, and the CSIS PRC team first got involved in Iraq at the request of the Pentagon, so they were regarded as a highly credible source of information until their information started being something the administration didn't want to hear.

Yglesias at TAPPED

The most disturbing thing I've seen recently, though, is this bit that Andrew Sullivan quoted from a Newsweek piece:

• The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August — the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting—a step up to phase three.

Not just a few neighborhoods -- "a wider area of Iraq than ever before." And the shift to gunshot wounds? Not. Good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What is Kerry's plan this week? See that's why Kerry is behind. Anyone can be a critic, but what would he do differently and would he stick to his guns? Getting our allies to shoulder more of the burden is not a credible alternative. Pulling out in 6 months to 4 years, without tying that to success is not an option.

You're not that stupid. Do you really think that Kerry would do what Bush is doing? Or do you think that he's making a tactical decision not to discuss it because he's trying to win an election? Please.

I don't know that there are any good options left over there, but the fact that you're in a deep hole is no reason to stick with the guy who's still digging.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're not that stupid. Do you really think that Kerry would do what Bush is doing? Or do you think that he's making a tactical decision not to discuss it because he's trying to win an election? Please.

Cool. "Vote for me. I can't tell you why, 'cuz it's a secret, but it would be really good."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Its not wise to procreate if you can't afford children.

2. We ought to give free birth control to the impoverished.

. . . . .

These are just a few things that need to be said, but nobody wilkl ever say them.

Umm, do you have me on ignore?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. "Vote for me. I can't tell you why, 'cuz it's a secret, but it would be really good."

How about, "a vote for me is a vote for change."

In other words, don't quit your day job to become a Democratic political consultant.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about, "a vote for me is a vote for change."

In other words, don't quit your day job to become a Democratic political consultant.

If you can fill in the answer to "a change to WHAT?", you can be the consultant.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, the main-stream media has gotten bored lately, and doesn't seem to be reporting on the story as much. But the CSIS work (originally commissioned by the Pentagon) is pretty disturbing:

Funny you should mention this, because opinionjournal has been posting all of the progress in Iraq to counter-balance the mainstream media: You can read it here if you are interested: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005610

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you can fill in the answer to "a change to WHAT?", you can be the consultant.

Exactly. The "trust me" approach is laughable.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Unfortunately, state and federal child labor laws made such efforts on my part impossible.

What about your parents? Couldn't they help their mother? Or would that have required that they give up something and they weren't willing to do it?

Originally posted by baltassoc
Which segues into my next point. She was eligible for the money, why shouldn't she take it?

Sense of pride and family responsibility. Did no one in your family have the ability to help her, or would they rather her take welfare so that they could drive nicer cars or take nicer vacations than they could if they gave her money?

Originally posted by baltassoc
But I'm glad to here you'll be sending back to the government that tax refund check you received last year. Wouldn't want to take a government handout, now would you?

That tax refund check is money I earned and overpaid in taxes. It is not welfare. Your statement is stupid.

Originally posted by baltassoc
And you won't be taking that child tax credit either, I suppose, once little Not Mes [shudder] are running about.

I don't have children and if I did, I would still be against child tax credits except perhaps for very poor people. We shouldn't encourage breeding via our tax code.

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm sure you didn't take any federal grants to go to college or law school, or a Stafford loan.

I did not take any grants. Did take loans. I emphasize loans and my loans were unsubsidized. So I am paying the money back with interest. No one gave me anything. I am paying for it just like I am paying for my mortgage. Loans aren't welfare.

Originally posted by baltassoc
Someday that social security check will just be sent back too, won't it?

I pay into the social security system because I a forced to. I think it is a terrible system that needs to be reformed. However, it is not welfare.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. "Vote for me. I can't tell you why, 'cuz it's a secret, but it would be really good."

It worked for Nixon in 1968.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Funny you should mention this, because opinionjournal has been posting all of the progress in Iraq to counter-balance the mainstream media: You can read it here if you are interested: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005610

It certainly appears that there are many more press releases in Iraq than there were before we invaded, and that's surely a good thing.

Did you read the CSIS report that I referred to and which your article mentioned in the first paragraph? It's bad news. Here's a recap of the five main areas they looked at:

• Security continues to be the predominant issue, hampering reconstruction efforts on all other fronts. Crime is rampant, and, along with fears of bombings, militias’ roadblocks, banditry on the highways, and regular kidnappings, continues to impact Iraqis’ ability to go about their daily lives with any semblance of normalcy. Iraqis are well disposed toward their own security forces and clearly want them to play the leading role in bringing stability to the country, but those forces are still not up to the task. Iraqis have little confidence in U.S. and other international forces.
  
• Governance and Participation is a largely negative picture, despite a slight boost in optimism related to the June 28 transfer of sovereignty. Iraqis are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the January elections but otherwise remain starkly pessimistic about governance and participation issues. Most are willing to give their government a chance, although they continue to question its credibility. Corruption is rampant, and there are worrisome trends in terms of protection of women’s and minority rights and religious freedom. Kurds showed surprisingly negative results on governance; they are frustrated with their own political parties and wary about protection of Kurdish interests by a new Iraqi government. U.S. efforts have been overly focused on national level politics and central government institutions. Efforts to develop local and regional political bodies have not been adequately backed up by the resources and technical assistance that would meaningfully empower decentralized governance institutions.
  
• The continuing lack of Economic Opportunity and high levels of unemployment impact reconstruction in other sectors, fueling security problems and leading to entrenched frustration and anger at the occupying forces. Iraq’s perceived wealth sustains Iraqis’ positive view of the future, but security problems continue to undermine oil production and export. Unemployment continues to overshadow the U.S.-driven macroeconomic reform efforts and salary increases for Iraq’s civil servants. Iraqis currently have a negative view of job availability, and those who choose to work for foreign companies or in Iraq’s security forces face serious security risks.
  
• Iraqis remain unhappy with the level of Services they are receiving. The lack of sufficient electricity in major cities continues to undermine public confidence, fueling worrisome discontent in cities like Falluja and Mosul, which were favored under Saddam and now receive considerably less power than in prewar days. Sewage systems are worse than they were under Saddam, causing spillover health and environmental problems. There is a wide gap between the level of services actually being provided (at least, according to U.S. government sources) and Iraqis’ perception that services are inadequate.
  
• Social Well-Being has seen significant improvement in terms of access to education and health care, although there has been a downward trend in recent months. There was an initial boost in the education sector with thousands of schools rebuilt and children returning to school, but this has been countered in recent months by Iraqi frustration at the lack of longer-term, sustainable efforts in the education sector. There are signs that Iraqi children continue to drop out of school at high rates in order to work and help supplement the family income. The health care sector has suffered due to Iraq’s security problems and inadequate basic services. Militias’ roadblocks and highway banditry hinder access to and supplies for medical care, and the lack of a functioning sewage system has led to an increase in water-borne diseases.

Oh, and you'll also be interested to note, I'm sure, that the media is not making things look worse than they are:

• Despite consistent criticism that the media portrays the situation in Iraq in an overly negative light, the media has not been significantly more negative than other sources of information on the issues of security, governance and participation, and economic opportunity. The media has been regularly more negative than other sources about services and social well-being issues. But in those areas, the media is
  arguably more balanced than public sources, in that it tends to include descriptions of the impact of security and reports of the Iraqi perspective.

(Not that this is any reason for conservatives to stop trying to "counter-balance" a depressing but accurate picture of things.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It certainly appears that there are many more press releases in Iraq than there were before we invaded, and that's surely a good thing.

I skimmed the PDF to get a feel. There is certainly plenty of work to do, but I'm not confident signficant progress can be made until the security issue is resolved, and I cannot fathom why the hell we have had a scitzo approach to the problem areas.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about, "a vote for me is a vote for change."

In other words, don't quit your day job to become a Democratic political consultant.

JFK has said what he'll do. He'll get our old allies involved. 1 I don't see that happeneing w/o significant concession 2 I don't see what good it would do.

I don't know why people see Iraq as a failure. It's a challenge, but in large part it's a challenge because in the past we've not stood up to challenges.

Sadr? Ultimately a punk who hijacked his supposed religion's most holy shrine. He will fade in popularity

Fallujah? Obviously a pit of problems, but we can certainly clean it out if we gain the resolve to do so.

that everything didn't get squeaky clean right away is not surprising given the Iraqui "melt away" strategy. That we need to stay there and try and give the Iraqui people a chance is clear. Running out now would be to say to the world we lack the ability to exist anymore.

If your "secret" Kerry strategy is to run out come Feb. we had all better hope his sorry ass loses. If what has happened so far kills our resolve, we are in huge trouble.