Back in the Vietnam war, the body count metrics were used to show progress. There was controversy about how the counts were made - e.g. was a 10 year old counted to be a viet cong, and whether the numbers were fudged. And in the end, the metric did not show progress at all.

This time around there is not just one big metric, but a set of metrics, which are changing all the time, without agreement about what these are, how to count them, and where the data is. One would think that after all the years, the great USA military would at least learn how to account for what is going on.

But, when the game is to keep the game going, such scientific efforts as valid measurements are not taken seriously.

By the way: what game are we playing in Iraq? what are the rules? who are the score keepers? who are the refs? who is the audience?

I love it when proof just keeps pilin' up.

After reading Kevin Drum (at Political Animal) on Petraeus' brilliantly aiming his hearts-and-minds campaigns not at the Iraqis but at the American public, while Iraq burns all around him, I'm starting to believe that David Petraeus will very soon stand with Robert McNamara (another genius IQ unable to see past the end of a gun) and William Westmoreland as an unindicted war criminal.

Every word Petraeus speaks, every order he gives, every sentence he writes, every interview he grants in support of Smirky's and Darth's Endless War is a betrayal of his Service Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and his responsibility as a commander to his troops.

Posted by Yellow Dog, Friday, September 7, 2007 07:25 AM

All I ask of the dems in Congress is that the very first one to question Betrayus begin by adressing him as:

"General Westmoreland ...."

Let THAT be the "lesson of Vietnam" Smirky keeps touting.

ya know...as other posters have noted on this subject, the opinion of the American Public can be volatile. The Dems, rightly or wrongly, are afraid that if they go to the mat with Bush on the war, those poll numbers would reverse, as the GOP smear machine geared up to call the Dems defeatists and traitors. It's worked before.

Would it work again, at this late date? Probably. I don't see where the IQ of the American Voter has risen higher than its usual. So, that voter is as susceptible to lies as it's ever been.

So, even though I disagree with the Dems' on this, I can see their point, however chickenshit it may be.

What bothers me is the seeming total impotence of the Dems to *counter* the smear tactics of the Right. That I don't get. Are the Dems so hapless that they STILL can't figure out how to counter GOP lying?

So, to err is to be human. Who will send us an inhuman solution to aWol's war?

I pulled these from the Book of Lists (can't recall which volume, but from the mid-80's), of the Laws Murphy didn't think of.

Rule of Research:

If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.

Golden Rule:

Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

They seem appropriate, for some reason.

The testimony of General Petreaus should be lokened to a Soviet army general appearing before the Politburo and telling them how great things are going for the Soviet army in Afghanistan.

The Dems, rightly or wrongly, are afraid that if they go to the mat with Bush on the war, those poll numbers would reverse, as the GOP smear machine geared up to call the Dems defeatists and traitors. It's worked before.

I just can't believe how many people continue to defend the Democrats in their behavior. Anyone who lives in fear of the "GOP smear machine" deserves to be removed from office. That's true in general, but especially after the 2006 election.

For two years now, polls have shown overwhelmingly that Americans emphatically oppose the GOP position on the Iraq war. But Republicans continue to support that war, and aren't moved by their "fears" of doing so.

Meanwhile, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support the Democratic position on the war, yet Democrats are too afraid to embrace that position.

As was true with impeachment and a whole slew of other policies, Republicans will embrace their positions regardless of polls. Democrats don't even have the courage to embrace their positions when polls show the country is on their side.

And they wonder why the country views them as "weak." But as long as apologists like Ignatius and this comment continue to defend their behavior - "oh, you have to understand, one day polls might change and they will be on the losing end, so they can't take any position -- nothing will change in what they do.

...the propaganda talking point "Things are getting better" is never followed up with the statement "Things are getting better therefore we can start pulling some troops out."

Why?

1) because they know (like us) "Thing are getting better" is a lie.

2) They see "improvement" as a reason to begin transforming Iraq into the 51st state, therefore as things "improve" the US will need more troops in Iraq, not less.

A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers

Or: The Warmongers and their Mainstream Media Circle Jerk

I apologise for being crude but this just set me off:

Citing his fellow surge advocate, NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon (who, in turn, featured O'Hanlon as his principal "expert" in his pro-war front page article this weekend), O'Hanlon argues:

These people are so shameless and despicable that it boggles the mind that they are still perched in their bully pulpits. I am enormously thankful for people like you and Karen De Young, who are out there detailing their duplicity and forcing accountability into the discussion. It is long overdue and is having an effect.

in the below quote, G.G. put the word "mistakes" in quotation marks, it just shows that so called journalistic inaccuracies are truly not mistakes, but exactly what their bosses want to see and hear.

O'Hanlon here is invoking one of Washington's most cherished rules: for War Supporters, there is never accountability for their "mistakes" nor for their endless record of inaccurate statements.