899:
By on Dec 31st, 2007 at 10:03 am
899:
The number of American soldiers who died in Iraq during 2007. Despite a dramatic drop in violence during the latter part of the year, 2007 was still “the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Surge, The Surge!
December 31st, 2007 at 10:04 am899 US soldiers dead in Iraq in 2007. The surge is working.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:04 amWhy isn’t anyone asking the presidential candidates whether or not they would approve / decline the CA waiver for tighter emissions restrictions on automobiles?
December 31st, 2007 at 10:04 amAnd yet Dinkledorf’s biggest mistake was “trading Sammy Sosa.”
December 31st, 2007 at 10:05 amDespite a dramatic drop in violence during the latter part of the year….
probably because most of the iraqis are dead, there’s nobody left to kill….
December 31st, 2007 at 10:06 amSo all bush has accomplished is training the terrists. they’ve become more effective at killing our soldiers. that means bigfoot’s step-kids are in more danger of losing limb or life. I bet he’s proud of bush.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:06 amBush has decided that paying off the people who were killing US troops is the wisest way to go.
Yep, rewarding those who’s hands are soaked with the blood of US soldiers by giving them a $300.00 a month stipend. The Bush Terrorist Welfare Program(TWP).
The big question is, what happens when the money dries up?
-GSD
December 31st, 2007 at 10:10 amIs 2007 already over…over there?
December 31st, 2007 at 10:17 amGo ahead and ask, you slimy little thug. Stay on topic before I thrash your ass again.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:18 amThe big question is, what happens when the money dries up?
Comment by GSD — December 31, 2007 @ 10:10 am
We realize that Venezuela is chock-full of oil and make up lies about their WMD program.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:21 amGSD,
The same thing that happened in Pakistan. Musharrarf negotiated with the taliban, and Al-Queda, last summer and they agreed to play nice. Now, according to Mushy, it was Al-Queda who killed Bhutto (when he’s not blaming moonroof hardware)
December 31st, 2007 at 10:21 amMarcus, don’t feed it. Flag it.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:22 amBobwurst, I think the Pakistan military has revised the cause of Bhutto’s death.
They now claim she died of old age.
-GSD
December 31st, 2007 at 10:24 amNow, according to Mushy, it was Al-Queda who killed Bhutto (when he’s not blaming moonroof hardware)
Comment by Bobwurst — December 31, 2007 @ 10:21 am
It probably was. The question is – who paid them to kill Bhutto.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:24 am5,000,000: number of Iraqi orphans;
December 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am4,500,000: number of Iraqi refugees;
1,200,000: increase in violent civilian deaths since our invasion;
one in eight: ratio of Iraqi children who die before their fifth birthday;
#2: rank of Iraq among world’s failed states;
$2,000,000,000,000.00: cost to US taxpayers
Yep, rewarding those who’s hands are soaked with the blood of US soldiers by giving them a $300.00 a month stipend. The Bush Terrorist Welfare Program(TWP).
The big question is, what happens when the money dries up?
Comment by GSD
And this is the reason why the cost of occupying Iraq has gone from 10 billion a month to 15 billion a month, all money borrowed from China. Even if you think that occupying Iraq is a good idea, how can anyone think it is a good idea to borrow money from China to finance the occupation?
But, then, our moronic trolls will say that it is worth mortgaging our children’s and grand children’s futures to “keep them safe”.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am“it ain’t over till it’s over” or “Till the fat lady sing’s…More precise would be untill the evil decider behind bull shit bush decides, he being the big fat guy with the bionic heart.
Cheney decide’s who, when, where any one live’s. die’s or is counted. Guess he figure’s the time to end the count as well…..Miserable, evil basterd’s all….
Happy New Year’s every one, work for Peace please….Ignore the black hearted little troll’s, by the end of 2008 they will be exiled to the sewer’s they came from along with this terrible administration…Just flush…..Blessings
December 31st, 2007 at 10:30 amI believe it is 6:30 pm (31st) in Baghdad.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:33 amWhy isn’t anyone asking the presidential candidates whether or not they would approve / decline the CA waiver for tighter emissions restrictions on automobiles?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 31, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Completely off-topic, but since we don’t have a ThinkFast thread today, you can be cut some slack.
I think it would be a great idea if candidates from both parties were asked about this. Most of the Dems would support California because they favor anything benefitting the environment, but the Repubs might go into vapor lock as they struggle with the conundrum of supporting BOTH big business and states’ rights.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:33 amLet’s bring them home in 2008. Call your Senator and/or Congressperson and demand it. The Democratic ones facing re-election should face stiff primary challenges and Republicans should be forced to spell out the benefits of a continued occupation, again and again and again…
December 31st, 2007 at 10:37 amOh, and JMH, what happened to states’ rights?
December 31st, 2007 at 10:38 amThe Democratic ones facing re-election should face stiff primary challenges and Republicans should be forced to spell out the benefits of a continued occupation, again and again and again…
Comment by OptimisticMF
Unfortunately most incumbent Democrats are facing NO primary challengers. It’s all the money thing. Beating an incumbent is by no means a sure thing and takes an awful lot of money.
On the other hand, it appears that Cindy Sheehan might be challenging Nancy Pelosi. Wouldn’t that be something if she beat Pelosi. Even though she has little political experience, I would rather have a fighter like Cindy than a folder like Pelosi. Unfortunately I don’t live in their district, but I will send money to Sheehan if she is really running.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:41 am… the Repubs might go into vapor lock as they struggle with the conundrum of supporting BOTH big business and states’ rights.
Comment by missmolly — December 31, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Superbly stated. Wow. :)
December 31st, 2007 at 10:43 amBilbo, perhap’s we would be better served if Palosi were impeached…She knew about the wiretapping before 9/11 and to date has been an enabeler to the reich….In checking the thing’s she knew and has not taken care of she is as guilty as the rest..Blessings
December 31st, 2007 at 10:47 am2007 was a disastrous year all around…. let’s not kid ourselves. Sadly, much of what is happening is fading from the public conscience. Please read the truth about this year and what it bodes for 2008:
2007 – Look Back in Anger!
December 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=675
December 31st, 2007 at 11:04 am“899 killed in Iraq”. Though ABC’s “This Week” reported “1014 U.S. soldiers killed” this year on Sunday. Does the 899 not include those killed elsewhere?
December 31st, 2007 at 11:07 amThe number doesn’t include those wounded in Iraq, and who died in say Germany from their wounds. Most likely the number is truly much higher.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:11 am5,000,000: number of Iraqi orphans;
4,500,000: number of Iraqi refugees;
1,200,000: increase in violent civilian deaths since our invasion;
one in eight: ratio of Iraqi children who die before their fifth birthday;
#2: rank of Iraq among world’s failed states;
$2,000,000,000,000.00: cost to US taxpayers
Comment by Keith — December 31, 2007 @ 10:30 am
and for what?
December 31st, 2007 at 11:13 amPerhaps we have our priorities confused?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 31, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Now that’s funny! What an understatement!
December 31st, 2007 at 11:19 amPerhaps?!?
Bilbo, perhap’s we would be better served if Palosi were impeached…She knew about the wiretapping before 9/11 and to date has been an enabeler to the reich….In checking the thing’s she knew and has not taken care of she is as guilty as the rest..Blessings
Comment by Witch1
I don’t believe that here is a mechanism in place to impeach a Congressperson. The only way to get rid of them is by voting them out of office.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:28 amI think it would be a great idea if candidates from both parties were asked about this. Most of the Dems would support California because they favor anything benefitting the environment, but the Repubs might go into vapor lock as they struggle with the conundrum of supporting BOTH big business and states’ rights.
Comment by missmolly — December 31, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Not a chance. Republicans have never let states rights get between them and the corporate teat. Ever. “States rights” is purely a code phrase for “keepin’ it white”. The only other time it comes up is when they know that, on a state level, they can entirely control the issue, which is why they try to get abortion and evil-ution knocked off the federal level. They know they can control it for Kansas and Tennessee.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:30 amI don’t believe that here is a mechanism in place to impeach a Congressperson. The only way to get rid of them is by voting them out of office.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 31, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Only 18 states have recall procedures in place, and only for state and local officials.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:48 amBilbo, you may be correct that Palosi can’t be impeached, I don’t know…Do know she should be out of office for her offence’s just like bush/cheney….I can understand not doing anything before 2006, but not since…Also taking impeachment off the table is unacceptable….
We have many in the dem. pqrty that need to be weeded out along with the rep’s..Lot’s of work to do in 2008……Blessings
December 31st, 2007 at 11:50 amPS By the way, too bad things in Iraq are becoming more stable by the day no matter how you all like to spin it!
Comment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 11:46 am
and
Is this the “spin” you’re talking about? 20-odd innocent people dead and dozens wounded? Or is reality just showing its liberal bias again?
December 31st, 2007 at 11:56 amRock me Dave Patreaus!
December 31st, 2007 at 11:56 amThe federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. The American auto industry is an economic / security interest as well.
State’s rights doesn’t mean each state can do anything is wants, like own slaves, etc. Given that the new federal legislation does much of what CA wanted, there is no need to grant CA a waiver.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:57 amCongratulations!! That’s great news for you libs!! We love to hear this, don’t we! Keep the good news coming, ok. Thanks a lot.
PS By the way, too bad things in Iraq are becoming more stable by the day no matter how you all like to spin it!
Comment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Only a truly sick person would rejoice upon hearing the news that 899 of their own died. Your own spin — that we cheer upon hearing about soldiers getting killed and that we bemoan a downturn in violence exemplifies this sickness, which you are obviously projecting.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pmGiven that the new federal legislation does much of what CA wanted, there is no need to grant CA a waiver.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 31, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Are you this stupid on purpose, jason Hitler, or do you just hate America?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pmReserve your spot now for the hottest get-away spot for ‘08: Iraq.
Who was the politician whose plane was shot at coming or going to Iraq that claimed the event as proof of progress? I know it had to be a republican, but which idiot was it?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm“State’s rights doesn’t mean each state can do anything is wants, like own slaves, etc. Given that the new federal legislation does much of what CA wanted, there is no need to grant CA a waiver.”
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
“States rights” do mean the state can decide not to place as high priority on a federal mandate, or consequently, place a higher priority on a state’s own legislation than a federal mandate.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pmAs long as both are deemed constitutional, that is.
State’s rights doesn’t mean each state can do anything is wants, like own slaves, etc. Given that the new federal legislation does much of what CA wanted, there is no need to grant CA a waiver.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 31, 2007 @ 11:57 am
The new federal legislation is a watered-down Christmas present to the auto industry. The “patchwork” argument doesn’t hold water. Auto manufacturers already deal with a “patchwork of regulations” when they manufacture cars for different world markets.
California’s economy is the 10th-largest in the world, somewhere between France and Italy in terms of GDP. Thus, manufacturers who design for European and Asian regulations should have no problem adapting to California’s regulations, which in the long run will make them more competitive in world markets by designing more efficient cars.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pmWhat does any of that have to do with MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED in Iraq THIS YEAR, than ANY OTHER YEAR?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 31, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Quite a lot, considering that they all died for oil.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pmI guess 2007 is over for Iraq, but not the US yet. So if someone dies today in Iraq, does it count as a 2008 death, even though the people affected the most are still in 2007?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pmPS By the way, too bad things in Iraq are becoming more stable by the day no matter how you all like to spin it!
Comment by John Kerry
So JK, do you think it is worth mortgaging our children and grand children’s future to the tune of 5 billion a month to bribe people NOT to kill us?
Violence is down in Iraq for four reasons and none of them have anything to do with the escalation.
1) Most of Bagdhad is now segregated into Sunni and Shiia neighborhoods so they are no longer fighting each other.
2) We are paying people a monthly stipend not to kill us.
3) al Sadar has called a 6 month cease fire for his militia.
4) We are sending less soldiers out on to the highways where they were getting blown up. Now we simply drop bombs on houses and villiages, no matter how many innocent civilians we kill.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pmBut, isn’t it possible that they also see that there is possibility for stabilization in Iraq. And that a premature withdrawl might not be as prudent as a withdrawl based on improving security for the Iraqis.
Comment by CaptainMantastic —
And what do you see in the current political climate that would give you this hope?
There has been no reconciliation, nor improvement of delivery of services. Iraqis are still in the dark, drinking tainted water.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:19 pmIt’s possible that the newly elected democrats are not acting to end the war because of political fallout. But, isn’t it possible that they also see that there is possibility for stabilization in Iraq. And that a premature withdrawl might not be as prudent as a withdrawl based on improving security for the Iraqis.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
No asshat. They see that it will be impossible for them to do anything to bring our soldiers home as long as the Republiscums filibuster every effort and then if they are successful, Bush will veto their efforts.
If the escalation has been so successful, then why don’t the people of Iraq agree?
“The intended purpose of the “New Security Plan” was increased protection and “security” for Iraqi citizens. If this were the intended purpose, then the surge does not appear to be a success. One might gauge success then by measuring whether the Iraq people feel more secure. A BBC poll published on September 10, 2007, revealed that 70% of Iraqis feel security has worsened, specifically for the area targeted by the surge.
Since the beginning of the surge, the Iraqi Red Crescent has reported monthly increases in the number of internally displaced people. In January, under 50,000 Iraqis had left their homes to find security in refugee camps or in less violent provinces. Each month thereafter, thousands more fled the increased violence caused by the surge, and in August the total number of displaced Iraqis jumped to 1,930,946. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, that represents a 71% increase with 96.5% of those fleeing Baghdad, the center of the surge.
If a majority of Iraqis within the surge area believe security has worsened and about 1.8 million people left Baghdad since the beginning of the surge, then can anyone consider the surge a success?
If the security of the Iraqi people was the intended goal of the surge, and more civilians were killed during the surge than during any previous year, then can anyone consider the surge a success? “
http://www.swans.com/library/art14/gsmith99.html
But. then, you wouldn’t want facts to get into the way of your delusional thinking. Go back under your bed Captain. I pity you for your fear.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm“And that a premature withdrawl might not be as prudent as a withdrawl based on improving security for the Iraqis.”
Comment by CaptainMantastic —
Define premature.
If the “war” isn’t possible to win because of the sectarian/tribal hatreds (kept at bay by Hussein for decades), “premature” makes no sense.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pmWhether we stay for years, withdraw now or something inbetween it should be painfully obvious to all that the current administration does not have the answers, didn’t have the understanding of what they started, doesn’t know what direction to move and have squandered countless amounts of blood and treasure.
The real argument should be to completely handcuff this current administration and remove them from making any more decisions on Iraq.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:28 pmOur attacking Iraq was premature. Our leaving is long overdue.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pmIraq IS NOT a war. Iraq is an occupation by the United States. There IS NO WAY to win an occupation.
God I wish the Democrats would learn to frame issues the way the Republicscums do. If every Democrat tomorrow started referring to Iraq as an illegal occupation of a foreign country rather than as a war, I’m fairly sure that things would change drastically.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pmI’m obviously not an expert. I doubt anyone here would claim to be an expert. But, there seems to be conflicting reports about the situation in Iraq. The consesus here believes the situation is as bad as ever. Comment by CaptainMantastic
So captain, if you really are interested in an “expert’s” opinion of how things are going in Iraq, how about reading what someone who lives there thinks. Read this and open your mind to the possibility that you are very wrong:
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/
December 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pm100,000,000: approximate number of Americans who are still completely brain dead.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pmMost people think a secure Iraq is possible. When that turns, maybe the Democrats would be willing to act.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
And who are these “most people” captain? They certainly are not citizens of the United States. A large majority of the people in this country do not think that things are getting better and think we should get the hell out. Read these polls jerkoff. They show that American’s opinions have changed little since the escalation started in January:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
So, again, who are your “most people”? They must the the 28%er’s. Only a Republiscum could look at 28% of the people in a country and think that is “most people”.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmAnd that a premature withdrawl might not be as prudent as a withdrawl based on improving security for the Iraqis.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
A “premature withdrawal” is a physical impossibility. Even if a withdrawal were to begin today, it would be 12-18 months before all personnel and equipment could be taken out of Iraq, and that could only happen as the security situation allows.
It is our continued and open-ended presence in Iraq that continues to fuel the insurgency and sectarian war as factions jockey for position in a post-occupation environment. The one thing the factions all agree on is that they want us out. If we announce the start of withdrawal and a benchmark/timetable plan for removal of all occupation forces, this would be the catalyst that encourages negotiation over final status issues both within the central Iraqi government and between the tribes in the provinces.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmSo, it was already known before 2007 that Saddam didn’t have WMDs and no Al-Qaeda connections…
However, 899 American soldiers died during 2007.
Am I missing something?
(Let’s not talk about Iraqi civilians, they don’t really matter, anyway)
December 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmA “premature withdrawal†is a physical impossibility. Even if a withdrawal were to begin today, it would be 12-18 months before all personnel and equipment could be taken out of Iraq, and that could only happen as the security situation allows.
Comment by toasterhead
Which is very convenient once you invaded illegally a country…
December 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pmbilbo. Come on. I’m an ‘asshat’, because I’m suggesting that democrats may not be acting because they think defunding the war may prove more damaging then a withdrawl based on security in Iraq?
I’ll put it back on you. You’re suggesting that the Democrats are willing to let more soldiers die although they know the situation is hopeless, simply because they don’t want to challenge Republicans?
Who’s protrayal of Democrats is less flattering, mine or yours. And again, I’m suggesting a possibility. Are nothing, but your views of the world, even possible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
You are an asshat because your mind is like a steel trap firmly shut to new information. The only thing you believe is anythig that is fed to you by your Republiscum masters.
I’ll put it back on you. You’re suggesting that the Democrats are willing to let more soldiers die although they know the situation is hopeless, simply because they don’t want to challenge Republicans.
I am saying that the Democrats don’t have a lot of choice in the matter. In case you have forgotten, they have several times tried to defund the occupation of Iraq and were met with either a filibuster by the Republiscums or a veto by Bush. Personally I would love to see them pass a bill defunding the occupation and keep sending the same bill back time and time again. But that is not realistic and they know it.
Who’s protrayal of Democrats is less flattering, mine or yours. And again, I’m suggesting a possibility. Are nothing, but your views of the world, even possible?
Why does it matter whose portrayal is the most flattering? That is not what this is all about. There are some Democrats (the Blue Dog Republiscum lite Democrats) who may think that this occupation can be won, but most don’t.
So tell me, since you think you are so smart, how do you “win” an illegal occupation of a foreign country?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pmCan you understand my confusion when Murtha says the surge is working?
It’s possible that I am wrong about the issue. Is it possible that you are wrong?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
MURTHA DID NOT SAY THE SURGE IS WORKING in the context of we are somehow “winning”. Here is what he said:
“I think the surge is working, I think — but that’s only one element. … There’s no question in my mind that if you put more forces in … it’s going to work out. But the thing that has to happen, the Iraqis have to do this themselves.” Murtha went on to state that, according to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, “the impression was, that I got from all of them, [was] that the central government is pretty close to dysfunctional.” Moreover, in a statement released the next day, Murtha reaffirmed his support for the very legislation that Henry cited — a $50 billion war funding bill passed by the House, which Murtha voted for, that mandates that the United States begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, “[w]ithin 30 days after enactment of this Act.” Murtha added that “[t]he fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable.”
In order for the “surge” to have really worked, there needed to be some results on the Iraqi government side of the equation, which there is not. A lessening of the violence in Iraq means nothing in the long run if there are not big changes in their government and their continued civil strife.
So captain, if the “surge” truly has worked, then why are we not bringing our soldiers home?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:55 pmCan you understand my confusion when Murtha says the surge is working?
It’s possible that I am wrong about the issue. Is it possible that you are wrong?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
I can understand how you and Murtha are both confused about this issue. It’s easy to look at the raw numbers out of context and claim that the surge is working. When you realize that the reduction in civilian casualties in Baghdad correlates not just with increased troop presence, but also with massive ethnic cleansing of the capital, a shift in violence to outlying areas, and the displacement of nearly 10% of the city’s population to Syria and Jordan, it’s much more difficult to draw a causal relationship between the surge and the drop in violence. Not to mention that the “Awakening Councils” we’ve enlisted to defeat al-Qa’ida are planning to take on the Shi’ites after they’ve finished with AQI – thus the surge has merely postponed civil war, not averted it.
And when you consider that the intent of the surge was to allow the government to make progress on political benchmarks that have as of yet gone unpassed, then it seems rather impossible for one to assert that the surge is working based on all the factual evidence. Why you and Murtha choose to ignore the facts is something you both will need to address on your own.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pmSo, it was already known before 2007 that Saddam didn’t have WMDs and no Al-Qaeda connections…
However, 899 American soldiers died during 2007.
Am I missing something?
Comment by Juan C. — December 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
i don’t get it either.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pmcheney/bush sent 3900 of our troops to their death.
for what?
why are we there, goddammit?
WHY?
what do we stand to gain from this occupation?
toasterhead. When Murtha was the posterboy for withdrawl, his words were the basis for whole threads here. Now, I’m a asshat for suggesting that maybe conditions in Iraq are becoming more secure. Is Murtha also an asshat? Why do you believe he is ignoring facts now, when 6 months ago, his words were near gospel for those opposed to the war?
The refusal to contemplate information that is in disagreement with your worldview comes across as solipsism. I am open to the idea that Murtha has it wrong. Are you open to the idea that he may be right?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
I’m open to the possibility that Murtha continues to be correct in his assessment of the complex situation in Iraq, and that asshats like you are misquoting him by citing the “I think the surge is working” part of his statement but ignoring the qualifiers he added after the word “but.”
December 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pmCapt’n, for the sake of argument I’ll agree that the surge has provided a sense of security. What next? How long will we continue to prop up a govt. that has yet to show it can stand on it’s feet? Do you believe the preceived security is a result of the surge alone? Or would you agree that the many different fighting groups within Iraq have decided to lay low?
I think you would serve yourself better if you could distance yourself from gotcha points such as your statements about Murtha. It only muddies the water.
This administration has done a terrible job at guiding/leading this conflict. The surge is only a military solution to the direct violence. It has not provided one Iota towards the political solutions that are needed.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pmokay, let’s assume the “surge” is working.
working towards what?
can somebody please provide justification for the following?
3900 US troop casualties
5,000,000: number of Iraqi orphans;
4,500,000: number of Iraqi refugees;
1,200,000: increase in violent civilian deaths since our invasion;
one in eight: ratio of Iraqi children who die before their fifth birthday;
#2: rank of Iraq among world’s failed states;
$2,000,000,000,000.00: cost to US taxpayers
and please don’t tell me “a more secure iraq/middle east”.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pmit was far more secure before our invasion.
Congratulations!! That’s great news for you libs!! We love to hear this, don’t we! Keep the good news coming, ok. Thanks a lot.
Comment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Why are Republinuts always happy with death totals of American Soldiers?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pmI don’t see any fiscally conservative numbers there LividLib.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pmJK on this site is a wanker. He’s a chooch, a pissant, a hollow blowhard of missinformation and he dresses funny.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pmI see your point. Do you deny that recently there has been a consensus in the media that the surge is working. (The media that previously saw no progress in Iraq)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
No, I don’t. I believe the media has, with a few exceptions, adopted the “the surge is working” narrative with little if any critical examination as to why violence may be down and whether the surge strategy is a sustainable one.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pmAre we fighting this conflict in the media? Or in the streets of Iraq? What has the media told us about the specifics? Where are the concentration of our troops? What are the latest benchmarks? What troops are getting rotated in and out?
The media has done a miserable job in keeping us informed. I don’t think we should now use it as a guage for any preceived success.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pmI see your point. Do you deny that recently there has been a consensus in the media that the surge is working. (The media that previously saw no progress in Iraq)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
But is part of that progress false, because of the temporary ceise fire with some tribes and payments of cash ( bribes ) to tribal leaders to not attack Americans?
What happens once the payments stop?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pm899! WHAT A SURGE!
December 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pmOnly a Republiscum could look at 28% of the people in a country and think that is “most peopleâ€.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
It’s understandable they believe this given that the beltway stenographers and propagandists say this kind of thing again and again.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm899 for what?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:44 pmI see your point. Do you deny that recently there has been a consensus in the media that the surge is working. (The media that previously saw no progress in Iraq)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
I think it depends on how you define “working”. The surge was supposed to quell enough violence in Baghdad to “create space for political progress.”
So we sent over our extra troops, executed the “surge” and accomplished our part in the matter. In that regard, the surge was a success. We did create the space and the opportunity for Iraq we said we would create.
But has Iraq stepped up to the plate? Is Iraq any more ready to provide their own security? Has Iraq’s government made any political progress?
Moses parted the Red Sea (with a great deal of help from God). This created the opportunity for the Israelites to flee the Pharoah’s army and escape to safety. If they had just stayed on the Egyptian side of the sea eating picnic lunches instead of taking advantage of the opportunity provided them, the parting of the Red Sea would have been for naught. Did the parting of the Red Sea “work”? Sure — that objective was achieved. But unless the end result is satisfactory, one can’t really call it a success.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pmOne has a better chance of being murdered in Washington D. C. or Philadephia than they have being killed as a soldier in Iraq.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pmThat being said, I’m for bringing the troops home and disengaging from the Middle East, South Korea and Germany. Our country needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations. Stop the influx of people from the Middle East into our country. I see no reason why we contiune to allow people from Sadia Arabia, Siria, etc. entrance into our country. These people do not want to share our culture or our values. If you have doubts look at what is happening in Dearborn, Michigan. Some will call me a racist but I just believe in the America I grew up in and I don’t like the changes are are underway.
Comment by missmolly — December 31, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
And I think we need to be careful with this line of thinking. You see, it is awfully convenient that Pres Bush is, once again, not to blame for the lack of progress in Iraq.
I believe it was exceedingly naive to think that Iraqis would “step up to the plate”, as if by magic. Their country is under a military occupation, and the different factions are still vying for power, years after the political vacuum left by the dismantling of their legal and political infrastructure (yes, it needed to be done, but not without replacing it with something else; which is what Bremer missed to do).
It would be specially tricky to manage to “step up to the plate” and not be perceived as collaborating with the occupiers.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pmSome will call me a racist but I just believe in the America I grew up in and I don’t like the changes are are underway.
Comment by Beethoven Rules — December 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Lemme guess – did you grow up in the segregated South circa 1950?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:56 pmAnd no, Beethoven Rules, Baghdad is not more secure than Washington DC or Philadelphia.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pmAnd I think we need to be careful with this line of thinking. You see, it is awfully convenient that Pres Bush is, once again, not to blame for the lack of progress in Iraq.
It would be specially tricky to manage to “step up to the plate†and not be perceived as collaborating with the occupiers.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 31, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Excellent point — and as I reread my post, I can see how some might interpret that as a defense of Bush. It’s not. My somewhat garbled point was that just because an objective is achieved doesn’t make the entire operation a success.
Murtha and others have been saying that we cannot achieve a military victory in Iraq, and one of the reasons is what you state in your other point. Yet we continue to wage a military operation in Iraq when it’s a political operation that’s needed.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pmWhen the media was reporting the direness and impossibility of the situation before the surge, were those reports credible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Somewhat, but I think they were often inaccurate for the same reasons they are now – reporting the day-to-day events and trends without a look at the larger context or strategy. The major difference is that pre-surge there wasn’t much of a strategy to report on.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pmComment by Beethoven Rules — December 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
“One has a better chance of being murdered in Washington D. C. or Philadephia than they have being killed as a soldier in Iraq.”
– Could you provide a link to this fascinating statistic? My data shows that Philadephia suffers about one homocide a day (tragic and unacceptable, but not nearly as high as the fatality rate of our soldiers in Iraq). And even if Philly’s murder rate WAS that high, does this somehow make the death toll in Iraq OK?
“That being said, I’m for bringing the troops home and disengaging from the Middle East, South Korea and Germany. Our country needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations.”
– Isolationism in a global economy? Yeah, right. Although I do agree we should scale back the military bullying and focus more on political and diplomatic interface with the rest of the world.
“Stop the influx of people from the Middle East into our country. I see no reason why we contiune to allow people from Sadia Arabia, Siria, etc. entrance into our country. These people do not want to share our culture or our values.”
– Unless you are descended from Native Americans, I assume your ancestors were immigrants to this country. Are you saying they didn’t bring any of their culture and values with them? My guess is that they did — along with all other immigrants to this land. Our current culture here is a melding of all the groups who have moved here. It’s one of the things that makes this a great country. Oh — and FWIW, the people I know who are ethnically Middle Eastern are proud to be Americans, even though they still have traditions, foods, and customs originating from their homelands.
“If you have doubts look at what is happening in Dearborn, Michigan.”
– Did I miss something? What’s happening in Dearborn, Michigan? Could you provide a link as to the tragedy there?
“Some will call me a racist but I just believe in the America I grew up in and I don’t like the changes are are underway.”
– Um…if you advocate discrimination against people because of their race, you ARE a racist. As far as the America you “grew up in” — you didn’t elaborate on that, so I don’t know what America you’re talking about. But what you’re saying sounds an awful lot like some people who rhapsodize about America of the 1950’s and earlier where only WASPy white men had any rights.
Comment by Beethoven Rules — December 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
That was exactly my point. We might disagree on how Pres Bush should facilitate said political solution, but fact remains it’s entirely his responsibility.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pmHow long will the military be able to stay at this current level? What will happen to our military in 6 months? One year? Where’s Bush’ plan to shore up our military?
December 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pmWashington DC: 181 homicides/581,530 population = .311/1000
U.S. soldiers in Iraq: 899 deaths/150,000 population = 5.99/1000
How long will the warmongers continue promoting this luricrously inaccurate statistic?
December 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Personally, I take the reports coming out of Iraq with a grain of salt: I do believe that the violence throughout that country is -by and large- underreported. I also have noticed that the American media tend to adopt the official narrative from the White House, whenever they can.
The media have also minimised (or underreported) the many fumbles and blunders this administration has managed to commit in Iraq and elsewhere; they haven’t asked the questions they should have from the onset.
American reporters have become stenographers rather than journalists, from Iraq’s WMD, to Hussein’s terror links, to the “Mission Accomplished” fiasco, to the insurgents’ “last throes” failed prediction… and now the surge is working. Not exactly a track record of asking questions, and trying to get to the facts.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:34 pmAt this point, with us in Iraq, the strategy of securing the situation, then working for political solutions seems the most appropriate.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Which is a nice idea, except that our short-term tactics for securing the situation may well make finding those political solutions impossible as we arm a whole bunch of Sunni groups who see the Shi’ites as their next target after they defeat al-Qa’ida.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pmI’m not sure if anyone knows. It’s a gamble.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
a gamble?
how much more are you willing to wager?
another 899 lives?
i fold.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pmArming the Sunni Awakening councils = short term corporate strategy Bush always implements, then fails at the long term goal…
December 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pmHow long will the military be able to stay at this current level? What will happen to our military in 6 months? One year? Where’s Bush’ plan to shore up our military?
Comment by hellinabucket
I think that is the whole reason for paying off the Sunnis, trying to maintain a cease-fire with the Shias (I’m sure somebody in the Green Zone has a backdoor channel to Sadr), and talking to the Iranians about security in Iraq.
By the start of next summer, the US simply not have enough brigades that can be deployed to Iraq.
Pre-surge levels of troops in country will even be more difficult to sustain, especially when you toss in the additional pressure for more personnel in Afghanistan.
Petraeus, I believe, is more concerned about creating enough stability to begin withdrawing US forces during 2008.
The main objective is to just paint over the rust, call it good, and bring everyone home.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pmIt’s becoming more evident that it is very difficult/impossible to transplant democracy.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Oh, sweetie pie, you didn’t know this, did you? Did you consult Iraqi population about an invasion in order to “free” them? Did you consult them about having “democracy”? Were they important at all in this preemptive action? I thought Bush invaded because of a serious threat to US security, which was proven to be false as anybody with a 2-finger front knew. Then there was the regime change. Do you know it is illegal to threat a country and then invade it…for a REGIME CHANGE?
You have been gentle enough to discuss things, not like other trolls, however, your line of thinking seems to be simply racist. Anyone thinking that Iraqis couldn’t change their own regime are racists and ignorant about Arab history. You think you can go around promoting democracy after Shock and Awes.
Try China. Let me know what happened.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:01 pmDid you consult them about having “democracy�
Comment by Juan C. — December 31, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Uh, yes we did.
Wait – funneling bribe money through Ahmed Chalabi counts as “consulting the Iraqis,” right?
December 31st, 2007 at 3:05 pmIt’s a shame that we have painted a face on what is essentially nothing more then an adaptation of bread and circuses. The current war seems to be nothing more then America looting Iraq for resources then lying to its OWN people about it. When this is all over, I would not be suprised to find out that we have moved past peak oil and we are simply using our hyperpower status to continue to lubricate the machinery of consumption by stealing resources from other countries with naked aggression.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pmAlso, speading democracy at gunpoint is impossible. Democracy, in it’s truest working form is inevitably a triumph over tyranny. But Victories, by their very nature can’t be gifts.
I contend that it would, in a more powerful pre-bush America, have been much much more effective to spread democracy by prying apart the mechanisms of despotism. Poverty and Ignorance being but a couple. I think now that it is indeed far too late to worry abouts spreading democracy, for we must work to restore it here again.
Bushco’s actions in Iraq were tragic as soon as the first bomb dropped. They made the U.S.A. a criminal nation in the eyes of the world. Zero violence, for all eternity, would not change this simple fact. We invaded/occupied a nation which HAD NOT ATTACKED US! IT’S WRONG!! PERIOD!!!
Every citizen of this country bares a share of the blame and we will be punished for decades if not forever. Nothing can change this. All we can do is plead for forgiveness.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:31 pmI think now that it is indeed far too late to worry abouts spreading democracy, for we must work to restore it here again.
Comment by Talphon — December 31, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
HEAR! HEAR!
December 31st, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by Talphon — December 31, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Awesome post! It should be required reading. Especially for those who work in D.C.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:02 pmJK, you have selective memory lapses. The posting you are so PO’d about was in response to your brain dead post.
Congratulations!! That’s great news for you libs!! We love to hear this, don’t we! Keep the good news coming, ok. Thanks a lot.
PS By the way, too bad things in Iraq are becoming more stable by the day no matter how you all like to spin it!
Comment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Notice how I didn’t chop up you post to just support a view. Here’s your entire post. It was flippant of you and then you have this indignation. I would really like to meet you and see if you are truly as off center as you make yourself out to be.
WWII, seriously, that’s not a comparision that anyone here is making but you use it to defend your position. Wacko is a word you shouldn’t use until you can confirm it doesn’t apply to you.
Keep up the simpleton view. We’ll take over the tough jobs now.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:19 pmBARTLEBEE / missmolly / etc
“MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS being killed means victory, to the republicans.â€
“Why are Republinuts always happy with death totals of American Soldiers?â€
What kind of lib wackos could even think of making ridiculous statements like these? The facts unfortunately are that the more deaths there are, the happier the libs get because they THINK that this will force their coward leaders San Fran Nan and Harry “The Body†to bring the troops home but of course they’ve not done this at all and don’t intend to.
And, IF in fact, the total number of deaths of soldiers in WWII had caused us to get out of that war, can any of you left nut libs even picture how your life would be now??? The number of casualties in a war does NOT reflect on if we’re winning or losing. Where in the hell did you wackos come from??
Comment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I don’t recall anybody here equating the number of battle casualties with winning or losing a war. Or an occupation. Whatever.
What I have seen here is people mourning the loss of our soldiers for a wasted cause — an invasion and occupation that should never have happened. And to suggest that I would be HAPPY about this is absurd.
On the other hand, I am not the one you should be upbraiding for posting that conservatives are happy about war casualties, either. I don’t believe anyone is happy about young men and women getting killed.
I admit to being a liberal progressive, but I am neither a wacko nor a nut job, and I did not make that statement.
I would like to point out, however, that our occupation of Iraq is not the same as WWII. In WWII, we declared war on Japan following their attack on Pearl Harbor, and then Germany declared war on us. Our losing those battles would have had consequences far more dire than our scaling down our involvement in a country we should never have invaded in the first place.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:42 pmNow might be a good time to point out that supplying arms to hostile factions in a civil war, while positioning oneself between said factions, is insane.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:57 pmCaptain Mantastic: “It’s becoming more evident that it is very difficult/impossible to transplant democracy.”
Of course that’s true, but you Bush supporters have a tendency to forget this was a huge “bait and switch.” We were not told that we had to attack Iraq to “transplant democracy.” We were told that we had to attack Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were a “gathering threat.” When that turned out not to be the case, they changed the rational to “regime change,” and when that didn’t work out as expected, the rational changed to “transplanting democracy.” Now, it appears to be “bringing order to the middle east.” Let’s not forget that we have been lied to over and over about Iraq.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pmManslagt: “The objectively pro-al Qaeda research team at TP must be celebrating those deaths.”
This is easily the most weasily and slimy of all the typical strawman arguments vomited out by delusional neocons who simply refuse to admit that their leaders have lied to the American public in the process of committing one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:09 pmLet’s be honest here: your guy screwed up the middle east, didn’t capture those responsible for the 9-11 attack, allowed the proliferation of even more terrorism and illegal nuclear weapons and completely ignored the real problem which has now exploded in his face and threatens the entire world with nuclear terrorism. AQ Kahn is a free man in a chaotic Pakistan. He has a virulent hatred for western democracy and friends in the ISS, which has access to these weapons. Your guy is, unfortunately, our guy as well and we also have to live with the results of his blundering, incompetent foreign policy. You can blame liberals and Think Progress all you want, but it simply confirms that you are delusional and have no ability to face reality.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:14 pmComment by Manslagt — December 31, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
As opposed to the subjectively anti-American, thereby pro-AQ, neocon scum?
December 31st, 2007 at 6:18 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Gee! Maybe that’s because Hillary, despite my dislike for her, is capable of coherent speech? Much as I dislike her, and political hacks in general, I would hire her as my lawyer in a heartbeat.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:22 pmCaptain: “Col Jack. Although the administration did a terrible job of communicating it…”
Sorry, Captain, but the administration made its justifications very clear. Cheney looked us in the face and said “there is no doubt that Iraq has reconsituted its nuclear weapons program.” Rice looked us in the face and said, “we don’t want the next warning to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud.” Bush said over and over that Iraq was a “gathering threat” to our country. Whatever sound bites one can glean from Hillary Clinton’s many public pronouncements are almost irrelevant. She committed the grave error of voting for a congressional authorization which specified a number of caveats for the administration that they completely failed to honor.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:25 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
And the one justification that got the most airtime during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, because it was the official reason to launch the military action was… (drum rolls please)… to disarm the Hussein regime of its weapons of mass destruction.
Pres Bush (and Tony Blair) repeated time and again that a failure on part of the Hussein regime to disarm would be the single deciding factor to invade Iraq. There was no mention of democracy or any of the other secondary reasons for the invasion.
You may not have been paying attention, but the rest of us did. Col. Ripper is correct in his assessment: Bush supporters have been moving the goal posts given the failure of this administration to substantiate their claims of WMD in Iraq.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:33 pmwhy are we there, goddammit?
WHY?
what do we stand to gain from this occupation?
Comment by LividLib — December 31, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
To control their resources (OIL & natural gas) and for strategic positioning (for any future occurence).
December 31st, 2007 at 6:35 pmComment by Gregor Samsa — December 31, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
US Intelligence told British Intelligence that the policy of invasion was set (May 2002) and the evidence would be fitted around the policy later. Noone doubts the veracity of The Downing Street Memo.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pmCaptain Mantastic: “It’s becoming more evident that it is very difficult/impossible to transplant democracy.â€
Define democracy.
If you mean invasion and subsequent installation of a figurehead, then yes, it is hard.
Now, if there had been a nascent democracy movement in Iraq (Chalabi’s band of opportunistic ex-pat’s don’t count), perhaps they would have more-fully bought into the idea – but with Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, and an inequitable power-sharing arrangement (to name but a few problems) it’s doubtful average Iraqis would ever view it as anything more than occupation by a country of cowboys.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:51 pmComment by John Kerry — December 31, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
If the fact that every single Dem voted to go into Afghanistan doesn’t prove you wrong—-I don’t know what you’d accept!
December 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pmDidn’t a recent survey in Basra find that 2% of residents saw the occupation as positive?
December 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm“Victory in Iraq means defeat for libs because it lessens their chances of winning in ‘08″
So, after nearly five years of no political progress, the Iraqis are suddenly going to bury their past differences, and unite – and before the ‘08 election.
Riiight.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pmThe Cheney/Bush administration’s definition of “political progress” is them giving us their OIL!
December 31st, 2007 at 6:57 pmFor those who insist that the “surge” is working, let’s get a little taste of reality:
A recent UNHCR survey of families returning found that less than 18 percent did so by choice. Most came back because they lacked a visa, had run out of money abroad, or were deported.
Sectarian killings have decreased in recent months, but still continue. Bodies continue to be dumped on the streets of Baghdad daily.
One reason for a decrease in the level of violence is that most of Baghdad has essentially been divided along sectarian lines. Entire neighbourhoods are now surrounded by concrete blast walls several metres high, with strict security checkpoints. Normal life has all but vanished.
[...]
By the end of 2007, attacks against occupation forces decreased substantially, but still number more than 2,000 monthly. Iraqi infrastructure, like supply of potable water and electricity are improving, but remain below pre-invasion levels.
Iraq Progresses To Some Of Its Worst
And here is another eye opener:
The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.
The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
[...]
The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.
Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk
If dodging bullets wasn’t bad enough, the Iraqis will now have to make do with even less food than the brutal Hussein regime provided for them.
Heckuva job, Georgie!
December 31st, 2007 at 7:04 pmDon’t feed the trolls.
By that, I mean JK. While I don’t agree with much Captn man says, he at least engages in mostly honest debate.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
What we are discussing here is the rationale for the invasion. From that perspective, it doesn’t matter what the bush administration believed, only what they stated publicly.
As I pointed out, that rationale was to rid the Hussein regime of its WMD. That was what Pres Bush repeated, over and over, in every speech about Iraq.
It was the failure to find said WMD that has triggered a deluge of rationalisations from his supporters as to why the US must stay in Iraq indefinitely, whether to rebuild Iraq, help them establish a democracy, or chase terrorists.
There is always a good reason why the US must stay. My reply always is: If the original reason to invade has proved to be wrong, you don’t make up new ones. Arguing otherwise is pure rubbish.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:10 pmCaptain Mantastic: “I don’t think I’m blaming liberals for what’s happening in the middle east. Show me the posts and I’ll retract them.”
Sorry for the confusion, Captain. No, I think you’re quite civil and reasonable. I was addressing that particular statement to Manslag and phony Kerry, who strangely seem to blame Bush’s failures on the people who criticize his policies.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:13 pmUnless, of course, the real intention was to establish a
permanent“enduring” military presence in Iraq.In that case, the publicly stated rationale needs to change constantly, as the old reasons don’t hold water anymore and/or new benchmarks are met.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:15 pmCaptain: “If they believed the intel at the time (I think most believed the intel), it doesn’t make the invasion unjust when, after the fact, the WMDs aren’t found.”
Let me remind you that Cheney said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.”
The words “there is no doubt” are particularly important here. As Rush Limbaugh says, “words mean things.” We know now that Cheney knew full well that there was indeed doubt about that. Therefore, Cheney lied, pure and simple.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:16 pmGregor: “Unless, of course, the real intention was to establish a permanent “enduring†military presence in Iraq.”
Exactly. All one has to do is go back and read the various PNAC policy statements to know what they always had in mind. And, please remember that Neocons are “Straussians.” One of Leo Strauss’ main things was the use of what he termed “noble lies.” His philosophy was that a special elite would know what is right for society and couldn’t tell the truth about their goals because the vast majority of a democratic population simply wouldn’t agree.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:20 pmTo all the wonderful liberal and progressive posters here as well as Captain Mantastic, a reasonable conservative with different opinions, happy New Year! That’s it for me. Out!
December 31st, 2007 at 7:26 pmOne more thing, CaptainMantastic.
If you want to discuss whether or not the Bush administration knew their publicly stated rationale was bunkum, let’s not forget about the Downing Street memos, you know, the ones that revealed that the “facts were being fixed around the policy”.
In fact, the case for war was crumbling -back in 2002- almost as quickly as the Bush administration could piece it together; African uranium? Bunk. Atta meeting in Germany with a Hussein agent? Bunk. I could go on, but you get the picture….
December 31st, 2007 at 7:26 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — December 31, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Yes, I agree.
At any rate, happy New Year to you too! ;-)
December 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pmMy recollection at the time was that there were ample reasons.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
There were many reasons why, according to the Bush administration at least, Iraq deserved to be invaded. But the decision of whether or not to actually carry out the military action would be the failure, on the part of the Hussein regime, to rid themselves of all the WMD they supposedly had.
That is what Pres Bush called the single question.
I never understood why there had to be just one reason.
That was Pres Bush painting himself into a corner. No one else got to vote on the reasons. After all, he is The Decider.
But, it would be difficult for me to believe that the overconfidence could be neatly described as criminal.
If facts were being fixed around the policy, they are, in fact, criminal.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm“I never understood why there had to be just one reason. People make decisions usually on a host of reasons, not for just one.”
It was a “product roll-out,” and you risk muddying the message with too many differing rationales. He was doing this at a time when we all knew the Gulf War stories (of Kuwaiti babies being yanked from incubators, and slammed on hospital floors by invading Iraqis) were bogus, and that the human-interest angle might be challenged as more propaganda, by a now-credulous public. Bush needed to scare Americans with an existential threat to get the war wheels turning.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:43 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 31, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
The obvious fact that the intel provided, to those who approved action in
Iraq, has proven to be inaccurate and incomplete (if not fabricated) is all the rationale needed to proclaim the invasion wrong. It has, in fact, been proven illegal in most contexts. Intent doesn’t really enter into it. I believe most, if not all, were convinced they were right, plus, they were acting on a deserved wish for revenge.
Unfortunately, our guilt was assured with the very first bomb. Then, it was compounded by our continuing offensive operations after it was established there were no WMD’s. If such operations had been reduced, and replaced by operations in support of Iraqi interests, there is a small chance that the situation could have been salvaged.
Instead the powers that be changed their stated objectives and increased the level of offensive operations. Over and over. Now? Our only hope is that at sometime (I predict several decades, at best) the victims of Bushco’s folly will forgive us. Unfortunately, the people of the Mideast aren’t noted for their forgiving natures and, indeed, we may never be able to regain the trust, and goodwill, of the international community.
Every phony justification will be repaid, many times over, by the ill will of the World Community. Our great-grandkids won’t be able to safely walk the streets of, or conduct commerce with, many nations. “Right” and “wrong” is not for us to judge. That judgment will be made by the righteous enemies of our country long after I leave my mortal body behind. And, children, yet unborn, will pay with their lives.
There are no mitigating factors. Our feelings don’t matter. The Iraqi disaster will define our Nation, and, there’s nothing that will ever change that sad fact.
If we, as a Nation, had pursued the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter it wouldn’t have happened. But, we allowed the greedy, the vengeful, and the violent, to pursue military action.
Personally? I’ll always carry my share of guilt, and, I’ll never forgive those who put me in this position, unless, the guilty step forward and take their punishment. I’m not holding my breath. I think we’ll, eventually, have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to the gallows. And, worst of all, it didn’t have to happen.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:48 pm899 for what?
Comment by jb — December 31, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Absolutely nothing.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pm901 Actually
January 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pmWay off topic.
This will be my last comment at TP. The editorial staff has elected to remove my response to a rabid attack, while leaving the falsehoods of the other party for all to see. This is unacceptable.
I’ve had fun, and, I will doubtless run into many of you on, effectively moderated, forums.
I can’t leave without a warning, however. The troll known as BARTLEBEE is a narrow minded, ignorant, hateful, judgmental, abusive sh!t-stain. And, when challenged, it lies like the lowest of conservative trolls. Don’t dare to disagree with it or you may be the next one subjected to it’s foul abuse only to have your response deleted as happened to me in this thread:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/29/huckabee-phone-call-with-god/#comment-4191249
Good bye.
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
My beef is with the staff. I will no longer support their incompetance.
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm