Letters to the Editor
-
Failure? That would be leaving. Only success is undefined
Iraq is just whack-a-mole. Given an infinite time limit, there is no chance of losing, as long as we can keep pouring money, munitions, and people into the game. Success is undefined, so it can never be achieved.
Winning and losing is only in the minds of the politicians and the poor bastards bleeding into the Iraqi dirt.
-
By my reckoning, "the surge" (including the 6-8 weeks of deliberations that preceeded it's announcement as "the plan") has bought TeamBush almost a full year of business as usual ...
look for more of the same .... it has achieved it's main objective -- muting many critics and maintaining the status quo...
... meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...
"every day in every way, I am getting better and better."
-
failure
Failure = 2 truck bombings
-
A pathetic stalling tactic.
Hemming 'n hawing 'n diddling 'n stalling. All the Preznit has to do is hold his breath.
It's like that old joke: Walking down the hall, The Shrub saw a sign that said "Wet Floor", and he did...
Hold his breath? Maybe he will. On second thought, then there is Cheney... Never mind.
P.S. AAAAAK!
-
Turn This Show Off!
Didn't I see this in early 2004, when it was called "the Liberation of Fallujah," or something like that? Unless we level an entire city, the fighters come back shortly after we leave for the next "hot spot."
-
Betrayus is a Bushit lying flunky.
Plain and simple. Think Colin Powell. Think of Betrayus's predecessors and their fates. That the Decider-in-Chief has had to default his credibility on the progress being made in a friggin preemptive war of choice onto the "word" of a hand picked soldier and an ambassador should make anyone's skin crawl. Mines just left the room running. Think about it for ten minutes and you'd puke. Plain and simple. What next? A Chief-of-Staff handing out ice cream on Fridays? A V.P. running a separate secret government? Never I tell you, never...
-
Tim, do you think that there is a plan for Petraeus's September report to be knocked off the front pages by Fred Thompson's "jump" into the Presidential race?
A light bulb went on in my head just now as I was reading yet ANOTHER article in our local paper about Thompson waiting till September to "announce" his candidacy.
Is this some kind of tit-fer-tat between Bush and the big guy?
And, remember: sometimes a paranoiac is someone who knows what's REALLY going on.
Just a thought.
-
I think the "fall of the Maliki government" is the most likely September surprise ....
they'll treat it sorta like knocking over the chess board... when, in fact, in a parliamentary system, it needn't be.... however, it will offer the opportunity to much confusion, power stuggles and new alliances ... none of which will be comprehensible to most americans .... except that we NEED to stay to keep Iraq from descending into "chaos" ... (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... etc.)
-
The MBA President
ScepticalGeek sums up the Bush argument all-too well with "Given an infinite time limit, there is no chance of losing, as long as we can keep pouring money, munitions, and people into the game."
I just don't get how they don't see this as losing. We're losing money, munitions and people. The only way this can not be a net loss is if the gains are greater. We know what the losses are. What are the gains?
So much for the "MBA President."
-
Surge Has Already Failed …
Let me see if I understand this. The entire purpose of the ‘surge’ that Bush et al have been pounding down our throats for the past few months is the following:
The ‘surge’ provides security for Bagdad and surrounding area so the government of Iraq can get down to business and make the deals the Bush administration is demanding.
Over the last couple of weeks the Iraqi government has all but collapsed. The Sunnis have pulled out. Maliki’s called for a summit and only invited one Sunni member of government (his VP) and it’s iffy on whether he shows up. Maliki is now threatening to fire all the existing Sunni cabinet members and replace them with the US’s new Sunni ‘friends’ from Anbar province (and forget that whole ‘election’ thing we’ve been touting). Several Shiite members of parliament are threatening a no confidence vote when they get back from their ‘vacation’. Others have pulled their support.
So even if we grant that the security situation has ‘improved’ (a highly dubious claim at best that Salon has already debunked) it seems that rather than ‘getting down to business’ the Iraqi government is collapsing.
So the ‘surge’ has had the exact opposite effect of what was intended.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
-
Where do I go on Salon to find the condemnation for the bloodthirsty savages who orchestrated these senseless truck bombings?
I mean, I know where to go to find criticism and sarcasm aimed at General Petraeus, and President Bush, and Vice President Cheney. I do a "search" on Salon.
But the Bush administration isn't much in the business of truck-bombing markets and village squares. What the Americans have been in the business of doing, in response to truck bombings, is to send security forces, medical teams, helicopters and relief supplies.
And WE'RE the bad guys?
From what nation does Salon originate?
-
Elephantman
Were we not occupying Iraq, that ghastly truck bombing, and all that preceded it in Iraq since we invaded, would simply not have happened.
-
To the elephant in the room
Where do I go on Salon to find the condemnation for the bloodthirsty savages who orchestrated these senseless truck bombings?
Elephantman, the truck bomb was an atrocity. There, does that make you happy? I've spelled out the obvious for you.
However, unless the truck bombs were orchestrated by our own democratically-elected representatives, then it doesn't much matter what we think about them, does it? It's not like the terrorists are gauging US public opinion of their deeds, and making adjustments to please us.
On the other hand, the actual catalyst for all this violence -- the US' invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq -- is actually being orchestrated by our own democratically-elected representatives (vote rigging notwithstanding). Therefore, if you believed what you were taught in high school civics class, the most productive focus for those of us dissatisfied with the current state of affairs is on our representatives who are responsible for this shit.
-
Some thoughts for Elephantman
I don't recall much (if any) serious argument or resistance to the U.S. and the coalition moving into Afghanistan to clean out the al Qaeda and Taliban infection that existed there. Remember when we had the support of the world in our righteous reaction to 9/11? Remember how everyone condemned the real villains then? Few people beyond true pacifists resisted our intervention then, and few resist it now -- but MANY bemoan our shifted focus to Iraq that allowed gains in Afghanistan to slip away.
No, we're not "the bad guys" in Iraq, except for the fact that we broke a country which was being held together by an admittedly brutal central authority (Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists) -- and gee, what a surprise, it fell apart just like Yugoslavia after the fall of Tito! We bear responsibility for the shattering of a previously unshattered country that posed no threat to us, and AT LEAST partial responsibility for the INCREASED violence and brutality that came after we deposed Saddam.
We bear responsibility for having no coherent plan to deal with the aftermath in Iraq -- no real idea how to put the country back together again, or to successfully shepherd three independent countries of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis into peaceful existence.
OF COURSE the "evil-doers" and "suiciders" (as Dubya so charmingly calls them) bear primary responsibility for their own deeds. But WE control OUR actions, and bear primary responsibility for OUR OWN action and inaction, including the results of same. Would the violence in Iraq be at the fevered pitch we now see, had Dubya not entered into a war of choice?
OF COURSE NOT. So how do we bear NO responsibility, Elephantman?