Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’
Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’
During his Senate confirmation hearing today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee Navy Adm. Michael Mullen argued that without political and economic progress, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” in the war in Iraq. “[P]rudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces,” he said. In questioning later, he conceded, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq.
Watch it:
Mullen also said, “A protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq…risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions and encourages their continued support to Shia insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
In the end, however, Mullen qualified his skepticism over the current course in Iraq by endorsing a long-term occupation. “U.S. military forces will be needed in Iraq for ‘years not months,” he said.
UPDATE: Asked whether or not U.S. forces were “winning” in Iraq, Mullen said, “[b]ased on the…lack of political reconciliation…I would be concerned about whether we’d be winning or not,” Tim Grieve notes.
Transcript:
MULLEN: I believe security is critical to providing the government of Iraq the breathing space it needs to work toward political national reconciliation and economic growth, which are themselves critical to a stable Iraq. Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference.
I look forward, as I know you do, to hearing from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus in September. I believe prudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, and we need to do that wisely.
…
REED: Do you agree that given the purpose of the surge — which is it to give the Iraqi government what you and the President call “breathing space” to make the political compromises needed for reconciliation and a political settlement — that there’s been very little or no progress in terms of political settlements.
MULLEN: Yes sir, I agree there does not appear to be much political progress.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
96 Responses to “Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Will they question him on his supposed support for military action in Iran?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:12 pmVote against this guy!!!
Anyone who is supporting a long term presence, shouldn’t be anywhere near this thing.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm“I believe prudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, and we need to do that wisely.”
hedging his bet, the word eventual could mean weeks, Friedmans, or years…
July 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pmThrow this one back and rebait your hooks, Congress.
Eventual drawdown?? - sounds like what would happen no matter what. Unless, of course, some in this government want perpetual war?
The war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and in direction violation of our Constitution - and it’s been that way since the day it started. Killing more people won’t change that, and we’ll still have to leave…
The time to end this madness is now. Not next year and not in the fall. Today, not tomorrow - now.
Some reading:
July 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm“Top Ten Reasons to Get out of Iraq Now”
http://www.populistamerica.com/ top_ten_reasons_to_get_out_of_iraq_now
“I look forward, as I know you do, to hearing from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus in September.”
But we already have the NYT op-ed piece! Why do we need to hear from Crock-o-lies and Betrayus in September?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pmIn the end, however, Mullen qualified his skepticism over the current course in Iraq by endorsing a long-term occupation. “U.S. military forces will be needed in Iraq for ‘years not months….â€
Mullen pulls his tuchkas out of the fire just in time…..
Cheney relaxes back into his easy chair….puts aside the shotgun.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm“I believe prudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown.”
Is Prudence a nickname for Hillary?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm“I believe prudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces”
This guy forgot to check with edelman. He’s emboldenin’ th’ enemy I tells ya!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm“U.S. military forces will be needed in Iraq for ‘years not months….â€
Makes you proud to be an American, don’t it? ;-)
July 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm“Endless war for Endless profit”. (see: (n) Vietnam).
July 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pmHe also said this:
“Achieving progress in Iraq and furthering broader U.S. regional interests are inextricably linked,” he added. “Slow progress in Iraq is undermining U.S. credibility and weakening efforts to achieve regional objectives.”
July 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pmand this:
“Growing coalition successes on the ground in Iraq should mitigate this risk and improve the credibility of our message to create a regional security construct to counter Iranian destabilizing activity,” he added.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:21 pmdon’t forgot about this:
“We had rigorous and thorough discussions and debates,” Mullen said. “The president then made his decision, and I am in support of that decision and working to make it succeed.”
Now, if we could just get progressives on board.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pmSo Mullen (a military commander) also says l O’Hanlon and Pollack are full of shit? Wow, I’m sure the pro-military wingnuts will defend the position of this military commander over some liberal press people like O’Hanlon and Pollack - right?
Hypocrites…
July 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pmYou’ll leave? You’ll leave over your dead and broken body, my friend.
You decided when it was time to come to Iraq. I’ll decide when it’s time for you to leave. How? I’ll ORDER you to leave when you’re getting ready to leave and we all know what you have to do when I order you to leave. I have decided you’ve not bled enough and it would be too early for you to leave.
Come, make yourself at home. Put you feet up and relax. You just got here.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pmwe smart people tried to say this years ago……but we should have never invaded afghanistan either.
second, it is becoming more and more apparent that hussein was actually preferable to what we have now.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pm“Why does Adm. Mullen hate our troops?”
“Why does Adm. Mullen hate the Amurkan people — is it because of our freedom?”
“Clinton did it too!!”
“Cheney 2008!!”
There — now all the trolls can go back to playing in their sandboxes and leave the real discussion to us enlightened adults…
July 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pmWe(Cheney and himself) had rigorous and thorough discussions and debates,†Mullen said. “The president was then told (made) his decision,
July 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pmCome, make yourself at home. Put you feet up and relax. You just got here.
Comment by Osama Bin Laden — July 31, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
I always swoon when Osama posts here.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pmMullen comes from a Hollywood entertainment family so he’s used to speaking out of both sides of his head.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pmSAME crap that the bushies have been spouting for years…..YAWN!!!
Seems as if the people and the congress are just willing to go along….YAWN……
YAWN…..
July 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pmTwo or three more Friedman Units should do it.
Trust me.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pmFrom the article:
“A protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq…risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions and encourages their continued support to Shia insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.â€
What utter nonsense! Iran has no hegemonic ambitions. It never did. This is neocon propaganda designed to convince the American public that Iran is the Evil bully that “The Decider” claims it is. Then our invasion of Iran will be justified.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pmDoes it matter? Bush isn’t listening. He won’t listen. He can’t listen. That is all we need to know.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pm“Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?”
Right Thing Stayed Out Unsure
% % %
7/20-22/07 42 51 7
5/18-23/07 35 61 4
Wow, this thing is going the wrong way. Are Americans becoming skeptical of Democrats crying wolf? Better crank out some more pictures of flag draped coffins, amputees, and al Qaeda prisioners. War is so terrible, it’s not worth defending your liberty. Let’s get the message out.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pmBut we’ve been in Iraq for years, not months like they told us.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pmOh well, he was on the right track there for a while. But in the end, it looks like he towed the party line.
BTW, I have posted to redstate.com from my work IP address. I asked them what they were afraid of. If they think they are right, then why do they feel the need to lock out anyone with an opposing point of view. I also pointed out that most liberal websites allow opposing points of view, no matter how inane they may be. It’s rather annoying and messy, but it is a price the Liberals are willing to pay to allow free speech to all. I have predicted I will be locked out in 30 minutes. It’s now been 20. Won’t be long now.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pmTOO LATE! YOUR FREEDUMBS ARE OVER! TROLLS!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:44 pm#
War is so terrible, it’s not worth defending your liberty. Let’s get the message out.
Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
#
How are we defending our liberty in Iraq. I spent 18 months there with the US Army, and I don’t support this continued occupation. We did what we went there to do, now we are undoing everything that we worked so hard to achieve. It is time to bring the troops home.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:44 pmI have predicted I will be locked out in 30 minutes. It’s now been 20. Won’t be long now.
Comment by bilbobaggins — July 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
I wonder if they think you’re Glenn Greenwald.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by paul — July 31, 2007
What liberty would that be?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm“…War is so terrible, it’s not worth defending your liberty…”
Our liberty was never threatened, that is until the present administration commandeered the government in ‘00. Iraq has NOTHING to do with defending freedom and neither did Afghanistan. It’s pure death merchant business. Nothing more.
And Iran will be the same way. OMG! They’re building a……..Power Plant!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6923324.stm
What liberty would that be?
Comment by Loonie — July 31, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
The university?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:47 pmWell, let’s see. liberals (democrats) won’t debate on fox. since liberal talk show hosts have proven noone wants to hear them on the radio, democrats insist on a “fairness” ? doctrine. Liberals pressure Fox’s O’Reilly’s sponsors to quiet what he has to say (instead of letting the market work). Liberals continually shout down conservative speakers on college campuses. And I don’t recall conservatives hugging Chavez when he came to New York. After he shut down the opposition television station in Venezuala, I can understand why liberals admire him so much.
The idea that the left is the domain of free speech, is laughable.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pmAmerikagulag,
July 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pmIran is a Progressive regime.
It’s model unto humanity.
Would you immigrate there?
I heard their political freedoms and human rights is superior to ours!
Why does everything “embolden” someone else? When did the world decided to become so “emboldened?”
July 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pmThe idea that the left is the domain of free speech, is laughable.
Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
You have been banned from this site.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pmOnly one million Iraqis have been liberated and, even with reports suggesting nearly 8 million more are almost liberated, that leaves millions of Iraqis yet to be liberated so it’s still too early for us to leave Iraq.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pmLiberty from fear of terrorism. Despite the view of many here, Islamic jihadists attacked us on 9/11 (and many times before). Jihadists declared war on us in 1998. The middle east is the primary base of operation for jihadists. The leader of Iran has called for the destruction of our ally, Isreal.
Here’s the Admirals words again: (sense TP has determined they are valid).
“Growing coalition successes on the ground in Iraq should mitigate this risk and improve the credibility of our message to create a regional security construct to counter Iranian destabilizing activity,†he added.
Do you understand what he is saying?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pmEgreggious, Esq.,
July 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pmI don’t support war with Iran.
But I don’t support that regime.
Iran si one of the most Totalitarian regimes on this planet.
Yet you Leftists love that regime.
Why does the Left never condemn that regime?
The left is not the domain of free speech - We are simply the ones who protect it.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pmHow would I destroy a Blog:
If I were a force operating to silence dissent to my position, I would do the following things.
First, I would go and identify the sources of dissent to my position that are the most popular. For instance, if I was a Right-Wing Authortarian, I might decide that Left-Wing Libertarian leaning blogs might represent a threat to my ideology. Since, in my own mind, I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is Wrong, Evil, and Anti-American, that means that all these blogs must be destroyed for the good of the country.
Now, I can’t really do a damn thing about DailyKOS anymore. My predecessors have already wisened them up to my kind, BUT there are other blogs out there, including AmericaBLOG and Think Progress, that are popular and not hardened against the tactics I want to employ. I’ve got operatives on AmericaBLOG, and they’re telling me that the gig is almost up there — within a month, AmericaBLOG 2.0 comes up, and it promises to employ more ways to deal with people like me and my companions. Think Progress, on the other hand, is unprotected. I don’t have to register, I don’t have to keep the same name, I could post ten times in ten minutes, all with different names.
Now, what would I do? First, I would borrow from the most time tested method in the internet to disrupt the flow of conversation, hijack things, and in general, create chaos and havoc: The practice of Trolling.
Now, seeing that I can change names ridiculously easily, I go out and get my two drinking buddies. We three go to Think Progress and start posting bull$#!+. Soon, it looks like there are 20 of us when there are only three. By the time we’re done, the thread is full of garbage, which drives off the regulars. I keep doing this until most of the good people are gone. Then comes phase 2.
I create another personality to act as my fake ‘Leftie Wingnut’. I then post on the board as that wingnut, posting BS like ‘I want our troops to die’ and ‘I hate the President’. By now, only a few posters remain, and they’re kept occupied by my troll personas and my buddies troll personas. I post this across key threads talking about anything and everything. I then contact my friends in the paper press, and tell them, “Go print an article including all these trolling threads. I need this out on the Six-Oclock News and the Morning Paper.â€
And you end up with what happened at Politico, and what may happen at other news agencies.
If I were a Right-Wing Authoritarian who wished to destroy the image of Progressive blogs with moderates, I would have a field day here, because Think Progress has no interest in controlling the trolls. If I were of a more conspiracy oriented set of mind, I might think TP is in with the RWA trolls, deliberately attracting Left-Wing and Moderate citizens, getting a reputation amongst them, then letting the Trolls run amuk to destroy that reputation. Even if I’m not, the bottom line is that TP doesn’t seem to care to do anything about it.
So, what IS really going on?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pmbilbobaggins, don’t try to get yourself banned from RedState. Just state your opinion. Be polite and see how well they wish to keep an open dialogue. Some of the responses to yours is a hoot.
Last I checked there were 18 comments on the post you were in. this site doesn’t get warmed up until 50 posts but 18 for RedState is pushing their server to the limit.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm34. Liberals don’t debate on FOX, because FOX is unAmerican. Liberals aren’t traitors.
fairness doctrine prevented pirates and rapists like Murdoch from taking over the airwaves in full defiance of the “market”.
quieting O’Reilly through advertisers is exactly how the “market” works, idiot.
Liberals never shout down speakers on college campuses; neocon retards do that. conservative speakers are pussies. you’re a liar and an idiot.
Chavez shut down a station that was fomenting violence, it’s against the law, very simple. No conservatives hugged him because they hate democratically elected politicians that don’t give up their oil easily. Chavez is a hero to his people, and was elected by them, unlike our own moron-in-chief, neither elected nor respected. Not to mention incapable of winning a war that was promised to be a cakewalk. Your eagerness to see more Americans killed in iraq is proof of yur own treason.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:01 pmI read a very interesting article on Huff Post last night:
July 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ coleen-rowley/ dangers-of-a-cornered-geo_b_58429.html
regarding Bush when cornered. A lot to think about. It is written by Coleen Rowley (FBI whistleblower), Dr. Justin Frank (who wrote “Bush On The Couch), and a few other veteran intelligence analysts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ coleen-rowley/ dangers-of-a-cornered-geo_b_58429.html
Sorry, link was wrong. Now its right.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pmSo… now I’m beginning to wonder how it will be, when BushCo Inc. is thrown out of Iraq.
Will it go like it did in Vietnam? With people hanging from helicopter struts? Or???
In any event, I seriously doubt there will ever be a “plan” that gets implemented for an orderly withdrawl.
ITMFAs NOW!!!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhy does the Left never condemn that regime?
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Why didn’t you just ask?
Regime, you are condemned.
Now are you happy?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pmronjazz,
He shut down a station that was opposed to him.
It wasn’t fommrnting violence.
I laugh at you Leftist that criticize your opponents as Authoritarian when you’re the Totalitarians!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pmIran is an example of a regime the Left supports!
Voltron, why do you support the American regime? They’re not much different, according to your view, from the Iranian regime.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:10 pmEgreggious, Esq.,
July 31st, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhat do you think of how Women are treated by by the Iranian regime?
voltron, you’re wrong on your facts, as usual with the right. if you don’t like the truth, you make something up. the radio station was calling for revolution against Chavez. Bush would do the same thing, instantly, as he already has in many cases. totalitarian is your middle name, and you get my middle finger.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pmOT from the troll shit: Has anyone heard anything about Specter’s deadline given to the WH yesterday? Anything….?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pmronjazz,
Wow!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pmThe Opposotion party controls Congress.
The Media is against the Government.
This blog continues to operate.
You’re still alive and free!
Yup we are just like Iran!
A-men!! TP: you were/are my fav blog, but the comment section is broken and flooded with trolls and hate! It make me sad…
July 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pmBut on yahoo.com news they make it sound like things are all rosy in Iraqnam.
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070731/ ap_on_go_co/ us_iraq
July 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pmronjaz,
“the radio station was calling for revolution against Chavez. ”
Ha ha ha ha!
You liar!
It was a TV station you fool!
It was not advocating violence.
It was advocating opposition to Chavez.
Do you know Chavez is now forcing all parties to unite into a single party?
Who has Bush shut down?
Keith Olbermann advocates Violence against Bush and the blog continues to operate!
Hey move to Venezuela you love it so much!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pmI guess those years of the U.S. military in Iraq are hegemonic years, no?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pmWhat do you think of how Women are treated by by the Iranian regime?
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
I condemn it!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pmHi paul–
“liberals (democrats) won’t debate on fox.”
That’s correct. At least, those democrats that don’t believe they should legitimize what is for all intents and purposes a right-wing/conservative opinion network. They realize that their appearance would only serve to add journalistic credibility to a cable outlet that has nothing to do with journalism.
“since liberal talk show hosts have proven noone wants to hear them on the radio, democrats insist on a “fairness†? doctrine.”
Wrong. No democrats are insisting on a return to the fairness doctrine. Democrats *are* advocating restrictions on station ownership within markets, without which deep pocketed corporate interests can simply buy up infrastructure for spewing a single point of view. While free market arguments would say this should be allowed, arguments for democracy should limit the power of the wealthy few over the less-wealthy many.
“Liberals pressure Fox’s O’Reilly’s sponsors to quiet what he has to say (instead of letting the market work).”
I hate to tell you, but consumer pressure on sponsors is the epitome of the market at work. People are letting the funders of the fox opinion network know that they don’t support or believe in what fox has to say, and that they will exert their market power to the detriment of those sponsors. If the sponsors hear enough cries of outrage, they pull their support. Yay! The market at work.
“Liberals continually shout down conservative speakers on college campuses.”
And vice versa. It’s called free speech, and it applies to the people speaking as well as the audience. Welcome to America. Enjoy your stay.
“And I don’t recall conservatives hugging Chavez when he came to New York. After he shut down the opposition television station in Venezuala, I can understand why liberals admire him so much.”
True enough, he’s hardly an admirable advocate of democracy. I suspect people were hugging him more for his opposition to the policies of the bush administration; that’s quite a large group of potential huggers in that category.
“The idea that the left is the domain of free speech, is laughable.”
Given some of your comments above, it doesn’t appear you’re too clear on the concept yourself. Free speech means being able to say what you want; it doesn’t mean everyone has to listen to you. It also means that people that disagree with you have the right to–and probably will–tell you, nicely or otherwise.
Comment by paul
July 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pmOT from the troll shit: Has anyone heard anything about Specter’s deadline given to the WH yesterday? Anything….?
Comment by Zooey — July 31, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I heard here that it had been postponed. But I think until just later today.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pmEgreggious, Esq,
OK, so you promise not to post anymore Pro-Iran posts?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pmWill you condemn Merlin as a shill for the Ayatollahs?
Iran is an example of a regime the Left supports!
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Typical troll, can only deal in straw man arguments. Thanks for capitulating, though.
Next.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pmvoltron, the opposition party is now the Repigs, and they will do anything in their power, along with the vetos of the Chempereor, to prevent the dems from passing anything that helps the American people. The Media IS the government, just like in Iran. thsi blog continues to operate, for the moment, and I am alive, but less free than 5 years ago. Your simpleminded BS proves that you are nothing more than a mindless, fearful chickenhawk, afraid to fight for the rights of women or anyone else, or you’d be posting from Iraq, except your iranian-style republican government won’t allow it. Some freedom.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pmOK, so you promise not to post anymore Pro-Iran posts?
Will you condemn Merlin as a shill for the Ayatollahs?
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
No.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pmNo.
ronjazz,
You’re a chickenhawk.
How come you’re not in Afghanistan?
What freedoms have you lost?
If your losing freedoms why not fight for them?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pmThat makes a…..
Chicken blogger!
Ok,
July 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pmCan’t we all stop arguing?
Let’s be civil and respect different views!
Bush sucks!
I’m sure even Voltron agrees!
Why does the Left never condemn that regime?
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
What part of the Iranian “regime” do you want us to condemn? Iran is such a rich tapestry of politics. The powerless blabbermouth Ahmedinejad? Ayatollah Khameni, who has condemned acts of terror and issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons? The democratically-elected parliament? How about the Guardian Council that hand-picks candidates for the parliament, and the kleptocratic mullahs who run it? How about the Revolutionary Guard with their documented human rights abuses and support to the Badr brigades?
So to make it clear - I do condemn the corruption and human rights abuses in the Iranian government, as I condemn corruption and human rights violations in all other governments, such as that of Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, Israel, and the United States.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pmLook into the latest Lobby reform bill in front of both the house and senate. It passed both earlier this year but with minimal differences. It should go to committee to blend the 2 versions together but the Repbulicans are blocking the conference. 96-2 was the vote in the Senate and and overwhelming majority in the house but the republicans are being obstructionists.
Look into the ping pong strategy to see how the Democrats are attempting to bypass the republicans.
Republicans are now boxed into a corner. They will either pass a bill that will meet with a veto and possible overturning a veto, or they will be voting against a bill they voted for. Flip and flop.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pmMoe voltron lies. Olberman calls for violence against Bush? Not true, but he would be far more popular if he did. as far as Chavez trying for a one-party state, that was Rove’s stated goal in 1998, so, again, there is very little difference between what you call totalitarian and what republicans are attempting to do. Iranian-style government is what you troglodytes do, you just don’t like it when patriotic Americans resist.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pmAre we supporting the Iranian regime now? I didn’t get that memo….
July 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pmIf we are, then “go Iran!”
If not, then “Iran sucks!”
fair & balanced and I get to decide!
voltron, I realize that you are operating under severe intellectual limits, but even you should realize that to be a chickenhawk, one has to be in favor of fighting in an illegal, immoral, losing war. this war is wrong, I dont support any aspect of it, so I’m certainly not going to fight in it. You’re the coward, sitting here comfortable, calling out everyone else without being any kind of man. In a way, I’m glad you’re a coward, because yoor presence on the battlefield would just mean that more of our soldiers would be in danger because of your innate cowardice and stupidity. But Chickenhawk is a name that fits you perfectly, not me so much.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe most prudent of all courses would be of course to disband the Joint Chiefs and eliminate most of the Pentagon and its budget along with it. It should be clear to all that the US military in its present state is not a defensive force at all as there is no threat to US security from any country, and that the military is an imperialistic force being used to invade countries under false or flimsy pretexts to steal their resources and stage future aggressive actions against yet more nations under future false pretenses.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:31 pmronjazz,
July 31st, 2007 at 2:35 pmYou’re a chickenblogger!
You complain about ths country but do nothing!
You’re also a chicken because you call someone a coward anonynmously over the internet.
That make you a pussy!
You know nothing about me or who I am.
Therefore you a fool!
Either way you support Iran and Venezuela enemies of this nation.
That makes you a
Pussy Chicken Traitor!
Ronass,
“you just don’t like it when patriotic Americans resist.”
Ha ha ha!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pmHow are you resisting chicken blogger?
Just by typing and complaining about things.
Go out there and do something!
But you won’t because you’re a coward!
We sure don’t need someone this ignorant as JC. He is clearly not competent to serve. Statements that are lies qualify him for the heap.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pmPlease, fire such and hire competent employees?
mongo. I disagree with most of it, but a very reasonable post.
I do not get this; in regards to free speech.
If you are boycotting, you are active attacking someones right to say what they want. If you disagree with someone on television; you can turn the channel. If you feel their message is wrong or harmful, and you sensibilities are commonly held, why wouldn’t you trust that other will come to the same conclusion. What you are advocating, is that people not be given the opportunity to make up their own minds. You want to decide what they should and shouldn’t be exposed too.
Doesn’t that signal a lack of confidence on the part of the boycott organizers? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pmMullen: I said that if the politcal and economic situation doesn’t change then we should not stay.
Congress: Is there progress in Iraq?
Mullen: No.
Congress: By being in Iraq how does this affect the terrorist situation?
Mullen: It’s making them stronger.
Congress: Should we leave now?
Mullen: No, we should stay years.
Congress: But you said that if the situation didn’t improve and actually it is getting worse, and now you say we should stay? What up with that?
Mullen: I got my job and I’m a good little lackey. Next question.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pmGo out there and do something!
But you won’t because you’re a coward!
Comment by Voltron — July 31, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
If you aren’t posting this from Iraq, go Cheney yourself - hypocrite.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pmronjazz,
You’re a chickenhawk.
How come you’re not in Afghanistan?
Why aren’t the US TROOPS in Afghanistan, going after Bin Laden, instead of in Iraq, dying for OIL COMPANIES? Oh, right, Bush LIED….
What freedoms have you lost?
Habeas Corpus, Illegal spying, etc…
If your losing freedoms why not fight for them?
We ARE. Bush and Cheney need to HANG for WAR CRIMES…
July 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pmIf you are boycotting, you are active attacking someones right to say what they want. If you disagree with someone on television; you can turn the channel. If you feel their message is wrong or harmful, and you sensibilities are commonly held, why wouldn’t you trust that other will come to the same conclusion. What you are advocating, is that people not be given the opportunity to make up their own minds. You want to decide what they should and shouldn’t be exposed too.
Doesn’t that signal a lack of confidence on the part of the boycott organizers? Shouldn’t people be allowed to decide for themselves?
Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
What is your opinion of the ‘Montgomery Bus Boycott’ in response to Rosa Parks’ arrest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
July 31st, 2007 at 3:35 pmYou’re equating institutionalized pre civil rights discrimination with Bill O’Reilly’s take on global warming.
If rosa parks and her supporters wanted fair treatment, they couldn’t just turn the channel. You can.
I’m not opposed to boycotts. I’m opposed to boycotts that have the sole purpose of shutting down free speech.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pmI’m not opposed to boycotts. I’m opposed to boycotts that have the sole purpose of shutting down free speech.
Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
There should be some kind of fairness doctrine or something that guarantees free speech in the media.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pmTurn the channel. Fewer viewers. Sponsors pull their advertising. Show goes under. No free speech.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:07 pmPaul, let me see if I can answer this for you.
Boycotts are a way for a large group of like-minded people to express that they dislike the actions of a company. Let’s look at it from this angle.
I don’t support Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I can’t stand the StayPuff Marshmellow-Man’s pompus attitude. Now, suppose I find out that one of my favorite suppliers for consumer goods, say, Cat Toys International (a made up company, just in case. :P ), advertizes on Rush’s show. If they are advertizing on his show, then, indirectly, I’m paying for Rush’s bull.
I decide not to buy Cat Toy’s products.
Now, if alot of people besides me decide we all dislike Rush, we all will avoid his advertizers. We’ve just conducted a disorganized boycott. Somone realizes that we’re all on the same page. The boycott turns organized. Someone else says ‘I hate Rush’. We tell him that Cat Toys International funds him. He’s like, “I buy Cat Toy products!” We tell him “Well, you may hate him, but you’re supporting him.” He either joins us, or says, “It’s not that big of a deal.”
O’Reilly is free to say whatever bull he wants. We’re free not to pay for it. Capiche?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pmI’m not opposed to boycotts. I’m opposed to boycotts that have the sole purpose of shutting down free speech.
Comment by paul — July 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
It’s not about shutting down fee speech. If/when O’Liely loses his TV show, he can bloviate on a blog… it’s a matter of making it clear to advertisers that when they support something repugnant to you, you will no longer support them.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pmIf it was actually “free” speech, money wouldn’t matter at all.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:32 pmJeremy. that is a good explanation. It is changing my perspective. But you say this:
Now, if alot of people besides me decide we all dislike Rush, we all will avoid his advertizers. We’ve just conducted a disorganized boycott.
But if you organize the boycott, doesn’t it betray a fear of what’s being boycotted by the organizers. The presumption that the speech won’t die on its own. Is it offensive to liberals that a message is being delivered to others, although they have personally decided to tune out? If you are offended about others projecting their beliefs on you (i.e. the church) wouldn’t it apply to restricting access to others with dissenting views from your own?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:39 pmWhat do you mean leaving Iraq? Hey, I’m over here, in Iran. Come and catch me. You can’t catch me. na nana na na, you can’t catch me.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:40 pm“But if you organize the boycott, doesn’t it betray a fear of what’s being boycotted by the organizers. The presumption that the speech won’t die on its own. Is it offensive to liberals that a message is being delivered to others, although they have personally decided to tune out? If you are offended about others projecting their beliefs on you (i.e. the church) wouldn’t it apply to restricting access to others with dissenting views from your own?
Comment by paul”
I’m not sure where you’re getting your ideas from, other than from those illiberals you hang out with.
You seem to be betraying your own fear here–that is, it would be offensive to *you*, a non-liberal, that a message you would tune out on is being delivered to others.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:53 pmBAGHDAD, Jul 31 (IPS) - Many Iraqis believe the dramatic escalation in U.S. military use of air power is a sign of defeat for the occupation forces on the ground.
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/ hard_news/ archives/ iraq/ 000619.php#more
July 31st, 2007 at 5:02 pmU.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped five times as many bombs in Iraq during the first six months of this year as over the first half of 2006, according to official information.
They dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first half of 2007, compared to 86 in the first half of 2006. This is also three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:05 pm“BAGHDAD, Jul 31 (IPS) - Many Iraqis believe the dramatic escalation in U.S. military use of air power is a sign of defeat for the occupation forces on the ground.”
It also tends to explain the noticable decrease in monthly casualties compared to the last three months.
I’ll bet there’s an inverse relationship between the number of US casualties and the number of iraqi civilian deaths–i.e., as the US stands down troops (and increases usage of air power), more iraqis fall down.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:29 pmcan we all say “Buh bye Mullen”? He’ll be gone in a week.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pmThank you sir, for the truth!
siri@legitgov.org
sumtimes when you think you are shrewd , you find out your lewd. in a fair and just world trolls would all have their hearts explode, welcome to a fair and just world
July 31st, 2007 at 8:45 pm“I’ll bet there’s an inverse relationship between the number of US casualties and the number of iraqi civilian deaths–i.e., as the US stands down troops (and increases usage of air power), more iraqis fall down.
Comment by mongo — July 31, 2007 @ 6:29 pm”
Well, what do you know:
“CNN.com: U.S., Iraqi death tolls head in opposite directions
The U.S. troop death toll in Iraq for July — which rose to 73 on Tuesday — is the lowest monthly total since November, reflecting military hopes that the recent troop buildup is making strides.
However, the figure is nearly twice as high as in the same month last year, while Iraqi military and civilian fatalities jumped in July.”
What an awful thing to be right about, however….
July 31st, 2007 at 11:04 pm