Deadliest Bombing Yet Today in Iraq

The deadliest suicide bombing to date occurred in Iraq today. More than 100 were killed and 300 were injured, many of whom are expected to die.

The pick-up truck that exploded was left at the entrance of a market in Sadriya, a low-income, predominantly Shiite area, police said. The truck was driven by a suicide bomber and packed with at least a ton of explosives, Major General Jihad al-Jabiri, director of the Interior Ministry's explosives division, told Iraqi TV.

The blast destroyed at least 10 buildings, Jabiri said, including two that were completely leveled.

Meanwhile, a new U.S. Intelligence report predicts a bleak future for Iraq:

The U.S. intelligence community yesterday released a starkly pessimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq, warning that even if security improves, deepening sectarian divisions threaten to destroy the government and ultimately could lead to anarchy, partition or the emergence of a new dictatorship.

< Cop in Abner Louima Case Released From Prison | FBI Investigates Rep. Gary Miller >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh cool (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    Jim is playing "Everything that happens from THIS point on is the Iraqis fault" game again. It's from the Bush manual for war making,

    Chapter One: Destroy the country.

    Chapter Two: Blame the population for results of Ch.1

    At what point did this particular blamelessness begin?   I missed it, I'll admit it. 03/22/03?  11/08/06? Some date in betweeen? Please enlighten us, Grand Poobah. Because I don't see any point in our "providing security" there if events in that country are the responsibility of the locals. Is this one of Bush's benchmarks? Because thus far I haven't seen any description of ANY benchmarks. What are they? Do you know? Can you point me to the link?

    Che is confused again. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    No, I haven't said that at all. What I have said is that the killing is beind done by Molsem radicals.

    Please try and keep up.


    Just reflect on this bit of trash... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    Bush wasn't driving the truck.

    Beneath this obtuse sentence lies the foundation for the rising wall of denial that Bush and his gratefully lobotomized base have erected around this issue.

    I will not believe anything bush ever... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    ...says about this iraqi war until: He proudly announces on TV that he is going to make a state visit to Iraq at a specific time on a specific date, that AF-i will land in broad daylight at the Baghdad Airport, that he will then take local transportation into town down that famous six-mile strip of highway, and that he will eschew staying in the green zone in favor of staying at the Palestinian Hotel in the downtown area, with only local security services providing his protection. Oh, yeah, and that he won't be wrapped in so much body armor that he can barely stand up.

    Ya think that will be tomorrow, or maybe next week?

    Bill is amused. (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    I think your comment is meant to amuse.

    Doesn't take much to do that for you, does it?


    Bill, It'll happen... (none / 0) (#24)
    by TomStewart on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    on the 12th of never. I'll be there waving my mini American flag.

    Please let me know where the rally will be! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    Good Lord... (none / 0) (#1)
    by TomStewart on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    Bush has a lot to answer for.

    Tom (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:54:59 AM EST
    Uh Tom, Bush wasn't driving the truck.

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    yes, he was.

    Uh Jim... (none / 0) (#23)
    by TomStewart on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    No one would have been driving the truck if Bush hadn't invaded. Thousands would be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded. Millions of lives would not have been forever altered if Bush hadn't invaded.

    This all comes back to George. I was for going after Osama (hey, I still am, let's go!), but Iraq was never about that, this was about Bush and his friends wanting oil and what they figured would be a cheap, easy victory, and that's the way they have conducted this 'war', cheap and easy.

    Bush has a lot to answer for.


    TomStewart (1.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    Could we have some proof??

    You know, I think you belong to the Church of Leftism. Logic and proof is never required, just faith.

    Handled any snakes lately??


    Proof? (none / 0) (#44)
    by TomStewart on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    Proof that George invaded a country that he had no business invading? I'm sorry Jim, but haven't you been paying attention?

    This whole war, this ungodly mess is to be laid at the feet of Bush and his cronies, the ones who sit around and wonder where they can next send America's sons and daughters to further there own agenda. It takes no cute little 'Church of Lefties' to see what the man has wrought. I really don't see how you can pretend otherwise.

    I do wish I could put on some rose colored glasses and smile and smile and smile away the pain and horror we are now involved in worldwide, but I cannot. I just remember what Shakespeare said about those who smile...

    As for snakes, I try not to hang out with them, but tolerate those I'm forced to share space with.


    Tom can't do it. (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    Claims aren't proof.

    Now. Got any?


    Nobody could have anticipated... (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:18:08 AM EST
    er... wait, were we talking about 9/11, Katrina, or Iraq?

    Whatever it was, Bush made the best decision. End of story. You say otherwise, you hate freedom.


    Scar, you are so sadly confused (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    You can condmen Bush and the US forever and a day, but the fact is that a member of the Suni sect drove a car bomb into a marketplace where many Shia traded and killed over a hundred, wounding hundred's more.

    How did that get back at Bush?

    How did that get back at the US?

    This is Moslems killing Moslems. Why?

    What in the faith that each of these groups proclaim to be right calls for this?

    What is the justiication?

    And if we ignore these actions, and the actions taken against other Moslems and "infidels" of all races and nationality, how can you doubt that it won't happen here?

    How much killing must the terrorist do for you to understand that we are in a war in which we must kill or be killed. Change the way the terrorist react or be prepared to give up to their demands.


    PPJ, surely even you must realize (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    none of this was happening before the US invaded Iraq. And before you start screaming "Saddam! Saddam!", let me remind you that he was our s.o.b. long before he wasn't. And let me remind you that the only reason why  the US even cares where Iraq is, is because they have oil. If the US and their coalition of lapdogs invaded other countries to bring them freedom, we would be invading Myanmar, or Sudan.

    And surely even you must realize that the American forces in Iraq cannot do a single thing to defend themselves, let alone stop the civil war. It is a lost cause. At this point, they can't even fly their helicopters in reasonable safety. The only reason they are still there, suffering and dying, is because the Bush administration does not dare admit the reality that the Iraq occupation is by all measures a complete, miserable failure.

    Iraq is now in a state of utter chaos, pulled apart by a mess of religious fanatics, resistance fighters, thieves and opportunists, who have been at various times trained, financed and armed by foreign meddlers, including very prominently the US.


    Al (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    "What Saddam was" before he became "what he was" is just a meaningless play on words. If that is your argument you have nothing to say beyond "America Bad."

    As to your argument that we are there because of oil, that is nonsense. If it had been about oil only, this is what would have happened.

    ....US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    What I can't understand is how you, and others of the Left, didn't provide just a bit of help for the Iraq people.

    After all, it is possible to be against Bush and for the Iraqi people being rid of Saddam and having a republic in the US image, even if not exact.

    I supposed their furious indifference was reasonable. They had many good arguments that I would have agreed with in other circumstances. I assumed that once the war was over they would back Iraqis trying to build a democracy, while continuing to pursue Bush and Blair to their graves for what they had done. I waited for a majority of the liberal left to off er qualified support for a new Iraq, and I kept on waiting, because it never happened - not just in Britain, but also in the United States, in Europe, in India, in South America, in South Africa ... in every part of the world where there was a recognisable liberal left. They didn't think again when thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by 'insurgents' from the Baath party, which wanted to re-establish the dictatorship, and from al-Qaeda, which wanted a godly global empire to repress the rights of democrats, the independent-minded, women and homosexuals. They didn't think again when Iraqis defi ed the death threats and went to vote on new constitutions and governments. Eventually, I grew tired of waiting for a change that was never going to come and resolved to find out what had happened to a left whose benevolence I had taken for granted.....

    Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left?

    It is time for reasonable people to recognize that the killing now is the killing of Moslems by Moslems for no better reason than their particular religious beliefs. The way you stop this is kill those who are involved in the killing.

    That is nasty and brutal. But outside of surrendering, I see no alternative.

    But what type of person do you think drives a truck loaded with a ton of explosives into a market area and kills innocent men, women and children because of their religion? Do you think these types of people can be tolerated?

    And can you please, just one time, take the blinders off and recognize that the evil we thought we buried with Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot has slipped out of the grave and infected a great religion?


    PPJ (none / 0) (#39)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    "What Saddam was" before he became "what he was" is just a meaningless play on words. If that is your argument you have nothing to say beyond "America Bad."

    Not meaningless at all. Saddam was our s.o.b. as long as he was fighting the Iranians. It didn't matter then that he was using chemical weapons. Do I have to show you the link to the picture of Rumsfeld embracing Saddam again? And it's not "America bad". Rumsfeld bad. Bush bad. Cheney bad. Colin Powell bad. Condoleeza Rice bad. Paul Wolfowitz bad. Chalabi bad. PPJ bad.

    As to your argument that we are there because of oil, that is nonsense.

    Of course it's about the oil, you doofus. Here, look at the papers:

    Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. (Jan. 7, 2007)

    The occupiers didn't fight for the oil fields or the pipelines because they thought they didn't have to. The Iraqi military weren't defending the oil fields, they were just running away and disappearing apparently. They were shocked and awed. The occupiers thought the whole thing would be a cakewalk, and it would be over in three weeks. The miscalculation was huge. Remember "Mission accomplished"? Now they're counting on the Iraqi "government" to legislate away their own oil, and the Iraqi "army" and "police" to enforce that legislation, and protect the incoming foreign oil companies. Good luck with that.

    It is time for reasonable people to recognize that the killing now is the killing of Moslems by Moslems for no better reason than their particular religious beliefs. The way you stop this is kill those who are involved in the killing.

    Well, first of all, it's not working. Right now, they're shooting down your helicopters. The occupation forces don't even control the air space any more. But beyond this, how is more killing going to solve anything? You can't kill all the militants. If you try, you just piss more people off and create more militants.

    Violent people like yourself think that all it takes to solve problems is courage and determination and overwhelming fire power. Religious conflict? Go over there and kill them. Energy shortage? Kill some more people. Terrorist attacks? Kill some more people. It doesn't matter if they are not involved in the terrorist attacks, just kill someone.

    Listen carefully: It's stupid. It doesn't work. It's never worked in the past, and it never will. And no matter how hard  you try, you'll never convince anyone that the failure is someone else's fault. It's your fault. You are the one cheering on this miserable failure of a government conducting a miserable failure of a war.


    WTF (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    ppj is for genocide?

    The way you stop this is kill those who are involved in the killing.

    How many people is that? What if Russia or China  had the same idea. Would that mean that our troops would also killed since we are doing a fair amount of killing?

    Sounds like something a five year old would say. Just kill all the bad guy. Considering that the our military cannot tell the difference between Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd, Christian, Jew or Agnostic, not to mention all those who are subgroups of those religious groups, how is the genocide you propose supposed to work?

    The Kreskin approach?


    Al cries (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    Al - Your failure to recognize the facts regarding oil vs why we are there, like most of the anti-war Left, is staggering.

    I know it is hard, but please try and concentrate and understand the logic. If it had just been about oil we would have acted as described in the link, or, we would have very simply cut a deal with Saddam. Simple, straight forward, no one would have been disturbed.

    Your paranoi over what could have been solved simply in two ways is striking.

    We didn't because there other issues. Like those that all of the intelligence agencies in the world believed.

    Your problems with the military situation are many. You look at a battle and declare all is lost. Based on your belief that the only way you can win is by surrendering, this is understandable. Wrong, but understandable. Thank God you weren't around on D-Day. Or Christmas week of '44. They would have placed you on suicide watch.

    So keep gnashing your teeth, pulling your hair while not forgetting the sack cloth and ashes. The rest of us will just keep plugging along, believeing that if you kill enough of the bad guys, the end result will be a better world.

    Just as it was in WWII and the Cold War.


    Look what you've done now, Al (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    You've got him slamming christianity now. I think you've pushed him too far. His head is exploding.

    Some commenters ignore (none / 0) (#106)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:21:03 AM EST
    We did rush to secure the oil
    The invasion was swift, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the military of Iraq in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was rapidly secured with limited damage in that time.
    The British 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines launched an air and amphibious assault on the Al-Faw peninsula, supported by units of the Special Boat Service Royal Marines and US Navy SEALs during the closing hours of 20th March to secure the oil fields there; the amphibious assault was supported by frigates of the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy. The United States Marine Corps' 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, attached to 3 Commando Brigade and the Polish Special Forces unitGROM attacked the port of Umm Qasr. The British Army's 16 Air Assault Brigade also secured the oilfields in southern Iraq in places like Rumaila while the Polish commandos captured offshore oil platforms near the port, preventing their destruction

    More irrationality (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    Americans kill Americans every day right here.  The issue is the scope of killing in Iraq THAT WE UNLEASHED WITH OUT F*CKING UNBEARABLY STUPID DECISION TO GO TO WAR FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN BUSHCO's delusions and incompetence.

    We have f*cked up beyond all reapair in Iraq.  That is the hard reality you are too afraid and prideful to face.  As an adult you know there are some mistakes that cannot be corrected, that there is, for example, no real justice for murder -- because you cannot bring the dead back to life.  You are acting here as if you can.  

    Take responsibility like an adult for what your support and foolish errors have created, Jim.  You were warned by experts, by Americans who marched in the streets, and they were all right, and you have been completely wrong.  You wanted war with a nation who posed no threat to us.  You wanted war with a nation that had NO connection to AQ.  You wanted war because you were more afraid than you were intellectually sound.  And now your side has gotten us into an entirely no-win, all-lose fiasco.  And all you want to do is make up Orwellian rationalizations about, well, Bush didn't drive the truck.  That is childish.  And not becoming of a free American whose mind should have been nurtured with freedom and not damaged by it.

    Stand up, be a man, and admit you were wrong, terribly wrong.  Admit that what you support has turned out to be one hundred percent in error.  Not a single politician you support, not a single policy you support in this crap, has been right about ANYTHING.  Not a single thing.  At what point do you take your head out of the sand and face reality?  Never, I guess.


    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    I think it is the Demos and the Left who should take responsibility for all  the encouragement and morale improvement that the terrorist in Iraq and around the world have received from the many demonstrations, protests and calls for withdrawal our troops.

    You know, I wish I could believe you do not understand that, but since we both remember the comment you made agreeing that the Left's demonstrations cost us the Vietnam war, I know better.

    Re: Bush on Iraq: 'I'd Do It All Again' (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:59 PM EST

    Jim, I never said you said Bin Laden was a feminist. Sigh. I was making an analogy, based on your statement that "radicals" ended the Vietnam war. Cronkite, as the nation's foremost anchor at the time, was one key piece in changing public opinion. And he was no radical. Trot out Gen. Giap all you want, you're stating the obvious, that protest worked. Sorry it helped "the enemy", but no Vietnamese communist fighting Western colonialism ever did a thing to me. How you fail to see our folly baffles me, but that's nothing new. The West NEVER had a chance in post-colonial Indo-China, and didn't deserve one. Had we used a bit of self-critical humanity we might have gotten a better result. But you don't agree, blah blah blah, we know how far apart we are. So be it. Have a good one.

    That shows me that you are willing to ignore the fact that this has prolonged this war to allow you to play politics. Truly, nothing changes.

    BTW - I love the transistion from "no Vietnamese communist never did a thing to me" to your claim that Iraq had no connection with terrorists.

    Poor Dadler. He never met an enemy he didn't like.
    I'm sure glad someone else is willing to fight.


    All Right... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TomStewart on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    Can't let this pass, this calling of Democrats and anyone against this unholy mess traitors. That's what your doing Jim, implying that anyone against the war (which includes most Americans, and yes, not a few Republicans) is aiding th enemy. If you had your way, the jails would be clogged with people refusing to support Bush's war. It is patent Nonsense.

    The Dems have had little input on the war (beyond the first, deceptive, vote), and the Republicans saw to it that any question raised about the legality of Bush's plans, of his power grabs and constitutional ends runs would be meant with little girl screams of 'anti-American', 'traitor', 'anti-troops' and such garbage.

    Now, with the Dems in power, and the American people demanding at least a debate on this debacle we call Iraq (if not total withdraw), you say that just bringing up the question is (as the Bushies love to say) 'embolding' the enemy? To stand up and express the opinion held by the majority of the people is somehow helping the enemy? You paint with a broad and dangerous brush. It is unAmerican.

    You should be ashamed.


    TomS (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    How much or how little input the Demos had has nothing to do with recognizing that anti-war demonstrations, protests and demands that we must bring the troops home improve the morale of the terrorists we are fighting.

    That fact is totally self evident. And if you can't see the logic in that I challenge your background in the history of warfare.

    Even Dadler admitted it.


    Not So.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by TomStewart on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:49:26 PM EST
    Jim, you're telling me that the 'enemy' is siting over in the ME, watching CNN, and high fiveing each other over the protests? I doubt it. I think their trying their dammed best to drive invaders out of their country. That's how they see us, as invaders, not liberators, not people who should be trodding on rose petals as we take a victory lap around their country.

    So, my pointing out that this war is wrong, and that we have no right to be there, much less stay there, is helping the enemy?

    Again Jim, shame on you.


    I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    I think that they are too busy with local events to  be watching CNN, which can be classified as luxury entertainment.

    They said the same thing about Vietnam (none / 0) (#53)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    PPJ is one of those people who still thinks Jane Fonda lost the Vietnam war, all by herself.

    Al, Jand had help. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:50:47 AM EST
    No Al, Jane didn't do it all by herself.

    She had lots of help.

    When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender......  At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America. According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

    How many died after that, Al?

    Want to play what if? What if the country had been united and if there had been no demonstrations?

    If we believe Giap, he would  have surrendered.

    How many would have died after that, Al?


    TomS - Yes, Tom. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:40:40 AM EST
    I understand that you are against the war, and I understand that you do not believe that we have a terrorist problem.

    And no, they aren't sitting around a campfire watching CNN on an Eddie Bauer portable TV. But the leadership is watching world news, and they are informed of what is going on. And when they see on TV, or read of, or hear a radio report of "tens of thousands of demonstrators" and hear Kennedy or Murtha demand that we bring the troops home, they are encouraged. Anyone would be.

    Now, you claim that I have called people who do such actions, "traitors." I do not and I have not.

    What I do believe is that they are terribly misguided and miseducated, many the products of what was once an educational system that was the envy of the world, but has now turned into a hotbed of anti-America activities and beliefs. One of the things that I have sought to understand is the motivation and mind set of those on the anti-war Left. What I have discovered is that they have a ready supply of venom and insults that they use on anyone who disagrees with them.

    I have also discovered that they also share the common characteristics of being very anti-Bush and, which was a shock to me, many are anti-Jew and anti-Israel.



    Tom (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    Why do you think that the terrorists must listen to only one? You must think they are like you.

    The terrorists are listening to everything that is coming out of the media around the world.


    Jim. (none / 0) (#68)
    by TomStewart on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    You have claimed that the protesters are helping the enemy, which is one of the tenets of the treason statute, is it not>

    Do we have a terrorism problem, yes we do (thanks for stating my beliefs for me, it's always so much clearer when others tell me what I think), but not the way you think. Our problem lies in the way we confront a problem that is partly of our own making. Bush has taken a hacksaw approach when a scapel is what is called for. Like the child easily bored with it's toys, Bush tossed one war aside to start another, abandons his old toy soldiers for snazzy new ones. Now he's board again and looking for distraction. Hey, that Iran looks good...

    Right now we have the world Bush wants us to have.
    He knows that tough talk, refusing to compromise or use diplomacy, to even consider another point of view will get us into more wars, plunge us into more worldwide anger and hatred, and keep the Reps in their favorite mode, all fear all the time.

    This is George's world, and he refuses to consider any other, any that might not validate his powers grabs.


    Tom can't get there.. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:06:15 PM EST
    I will let you speculate on what makes one a traitor. I just concentrate pointing out what I consider to be very poor behavior.

    You have again brought up one of the claims of the Left that we should use a scapel. I really do not know what they means. I take it to mean that you want to use investigation and the law enforcement approach.

    Tell me, did you support the NSA warrantless activities re non-us citizens speaking to us citizens and vice versa? How about the exposure by the NYT that we tracing the money??? Find anything wrong with the NYT's blabbing that?

    Of course the problem with a criminal justice approach is that it just hasn't worked. You can look back in the years prior to 9/11 and easily see a steady increase in terrorist activities.

    The rest of your comments are just the standard Bush Bad stuff, plus the buzz words re diplomacy, etc.

    Let me assure of one thing. For diplomacy to work, you must have negotiations. For negotiations to work, both sides must give up something.

    Now, Tom. What would you give up? Women's rights? Gays and Lesbians right to live? Hey, let's keep it outside the US and just give'em Israel...

    That'll keep'em satisfied... for a while...


    So, ppj (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    How is the war going?

    Sqeaky... ask and you shall know (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    Based on the lack of support given by persons such as yourself, other members of the Left and various Democrats, I'd say reasonably well.

    Iraq - So far the terrorists have been convinced that they can win if they just hang on.

    On the plus side Bush is still President and the Demos don't have the brass to pull the support for the troops.

    Afghanistan - al-Qaida is trying for a comeback, which works in our favor, because it is necessary to catchem before you can killem.

    The rest:  Israel just killed another highlevel terrorist and someone killed the brother to OBL.

    You may make donations to a chairity of your choice in their memory...... or kill a few of those unclean dogs running around.. Your choice.
    BTW - I know these two departed souls would love it... But stoning of women accused of adultery is definitely OUT in the US... for the time being.


    And there you have it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    The failure of the invasion of Iraq is due to the opposition. It's not due to the strategic blunders of the Keystone Kops in the White House and the DOD (let us not forget the celebrated Rummy) and the State Department where the unlamented Colin Powell went before the UN Security Council to present "evidence" which he himself later qualified as false. It's not the fault of Paul Bremer, who ran around in a three-piece suit and army boots desperately trying to privatize everything before he got killed, and overseeing the disappearance of billions of dollars entrusted to the CPA. It's not the fault of Halliburton and Kellogg and Brown with all their no-bid contracts. It's not the fault of Donald Rumsfeld, who seemed more preoccupied with coming up with kinky ways of humiliating prisoners and boasting that the military could conducty several wars at the same time, than with calculating how many troops would be needed to conduct just one.

    No, the failure in Iraq is due to those dastardly traitors who have marched againt the war, or who dare to wear Bush-mocking T-shirts, or who post venomous critiques of the war on treasonous left-wing blogs.

    That's right, Jim. I admit it. The failure in Iraq is my fault.


    Al says war problems his fault. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:33:20 PM EST
    How can I argue with that.

    But you did have lots of help, so don't be too proud.


    Er, PPJ? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Al on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    Just being sarcastic. Seriously, it's your fault. But, like you say, you did have lots of help, so don't be too proud.

    Wow (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    How is the war going?
    ...reasonably well.

    If that is in fact how you see the war going, please explain this comment.

    You say that I have said the war was gone swimmingly well.

    I have never said that. Must I again and again point out how you claim the right to smear, with no special attention to the facts?

    So my comment that, according to you, the war is going swimmingly well is a smear? How so? If anything I would call it a slight exaggeration. Just a notch up from 'reasonably well'.

    How did you come to conclude that the war is going reasonably well? Was it from reading or listening to Bill Kristol, Daniel Pipes, or Faux News? My guess is Kristol, who just this morning said that news of the Deadliest Bombing Yet Today in Iraq and the the recent surge in Iraqi violence is a sign that the extremists are "worried"...He said "...it is going to be tough, but I have seen nothing to convince me that the surge can't work quite well"

    He is "slightly optomistic" now. I'd say that this means he thinks things are going 'reasonably well', no?

    BTW-Your overrealiance on Pipes et al is getting stale.

    Based on the lack of support given by persons such as yourself, other members of the Left and various Democrats, I'd say reasonably well.

    Are you saying that the anti-war left and more recently anti-war right is the only thing stopping the war from going swimmingly well as opposed to reasonably well?

    Or is there another basis that you can answer the question from?


    Your answers display your smear machine. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:45:15 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    IOW (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    Swimmingly. Up the creek without a paddle.

    And btw, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Pulling batallions out of Afghanistan to 'surge' them into Iraq is uh... lemee think here for sec... ummm... it's a.... a 'strategic retreat" - yeah - that's it! To fool the Taliban into thinking they can't just waltz back in with no opposition.

    Edger the military guy (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:03:12 AM EST
    The movement of troops from one battlefield to another is a tactic that is as old as war.
    That's why we have ships and planes.

    Afghanistan is an important battle, but you must stop and see what we wanted to do, which was remove the Taliban from power, which we did.

    Many of them went into the mountains, and into southern Afghanistan. To pursue them would be very costly in lives. Just letting them stay there until they want to try their luck again is a low cost, low risk strategy.


    Reality bites (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:29:01 AM EST
    A Serious Problem with the Surge
    The Bush administration has finally turned its attention in a serious way to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. It has, of course, been seriously deteriorating for some time and the attention is likely to be brief.

    Afghanistan has been the victim of international attention deficit disorder. Not only the Bush administration suffers this malady that could snatch victory from defeat.

    What has changed in the past 18 months? The Taliban have new weapons, vehicles, communications equipment with encryption, and outreach and propaganda facilities.

    It is overdue to seriously rethink how to try to retake the initiative. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gone from a defeated, dejected force under fire even from fellow travelers, to resilient heroes in the past two years.

    Given the lack of security, people are helping the Taliban, if not for conviction, then out of fear that, ultimately, the Taliban will return, as they have in several provinces already.

    The massive focus on Iraq by the Bush administration would have been less damaging to Afghanistan if NATO and other allies had been more willing to pick up the slack.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    A bumper opium crop. I believe that they set a record this year.

    That's a little (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    suspiciously co-incidental, yes.

    Bush style freedom and democracy for Afghanistan (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    Is the Bush Administration Getting Nervous About Afghan Opium Licensing Schemes?
    Afghanistan now accounts for 90% of the global illicit opium supply--and Taliban insurgents have gathered strength...
    The current US administration, however, is adamantly opposed to any such effort in Afghanistan. Instead, drug war extremists in Washington are pushing the Afghans to make stronger efforts to eradicate the poppy crop and are even trying to push herbicidal eradication down the throat of the Karzai government. That idea has little support in Afghanistan or even among our NATO allies. Both groups fear a sustained attack on the country's economic mainstay will lead to political upheaval and end up benefiting the Taliban, a not unreasonable worry.
    Tomgram: Ann Jones on the Nightmare of Afghan Women

    AFGHANISTAN: Girls and women traded for opium debts


    And watch this (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    Face reality? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    He's got more important things to worry about than mere reality.

    They've never before been able to define what "winning" means, or what they hope to "win".

    But... I've been doing a bit of research, and I think I've found the answer. It's his way of life he's afraid of losing.

    It's all or nothing to them now, and they have no idea "how they would go on".


    Fightin' 'em over dere... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    ...'stead of uh, fightin' 'em over chere.

    Bush Commits One Additional Troop To Afghanistan
    Ekenberg's most vital assignment ... will be to patrol approximately 1,200 square miles of volatile territory on the Afghan-Pakistani border and conduct search-and-destroy missions on the estimated 40,000 caves where U.S. intelligence sources believe Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives could be hiding.
    "We have requested that he receive full logistical support while deployed in this theater. We've been told that his body armor will be arriving within six months of his reporting for duty, budget permitting."

    "Please, support our troop."

    We understand you (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    Of course your comment is fabricated. And of course you give no link or source.

    Your dedication to truth and reasonableness is well defined in this comment you recently made.

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Unbalanced playing field (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:11:22 PM EST
    Your dedication to truth and reasonableness is well defined in this comment you recently made.
    ppj gets to make such claims, while TL prevents us from quoting ppj's calling for death to American political leaders.

    C'mon Jeralyn, ppj gets to say things like the above on this site and we can't quote the fact that he called for the deaths of Americans on this site?

    ppj gets to castigate commenters for not responding yet when we do our comments are deleted?

    Your site, your rules. But the rules should be fairly applied to all.


    He's just trolling for (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:28:00 AM EST
    some response to him, sailor. Any response will do  for him, all he wants is some attention. Even insults, as long as he gets attention. It's pretty pathetic. Childish too.

    Not to worry, bush has a secret plan... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    ...to win according to Kissinger, which means we can all relax, kick back, drink another beer, watch TV, go shopping to support the troops, and just wait for the magical plan to be executed by fairies and genies as they spread sunshine, blue skies, flowers, and goodwill throughout the Middle East.



    ppj POV (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    The war is going swimmingly well. He is iving in a vacuum where ignorance rules.  
    Rupert Murdoch, who gives you Bill O'Reilly, Daniel Pipes, and other fantasists of the hard Right by his ownership of a vast media empire admitted at the Davos conference that his companies had "tried" to propagandize for Bush's Iraq War. He said that they were critical of the execution of the war, though. He doesn't watch or read his own media if he thinks that. It is never a discouraging word and 'what were the RNC talking points today?' over there in Foxland.


    Murdoch's media have done more to cheapen American values and drive the country toward fascistic ways of thinking than anything since the McCarthy period in the 1950s.

    Juan Cole


    Squeaky smears (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    You say that I have said the war was gone swimmingly well.

    I have never said that. Must I again and again point out how you claim the right to smear, with no special attention to the facts?

    BTW - Could we have the full statement?


    Not a quote (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    But a paraphrase. Haven't you always told us that supporting the troops means echoing Murdoch propaganda and anything less is giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

    So if somehow I misread your position tell me:

    How is the war going?


    Complete?? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    I just told you.

    Now. Can we have a link to the complete Murdock quote??


    And (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    there was only one small mistake made in the whole long episode.

    And if it had been taken care of early enough nothing ever would have come of it.


    Just like flicking a switch (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    isn't it, Squeaky? Or pulling the plunger on a pinball machine. Could be another banner day at this rate. ;-)

    And the beat goes on! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mreddieb on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    I sometime think the News frome Iraq is jsut an endless loop. The scenes of carnage all look alike. I imagine how America would react if this was going on in the State of California or New Orleans. OH! Im sorry I forgot It would be Bushs' faule either because he wasn't driving the truck during Katrina either.

    Bill Kristol says (none / 0) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    that the increased violence is a sign that we are "winning."

    He also says that when it's dark outside, it's noon, that when you let go of something, the direction it falls is up, and that when you see a red traffic signal, it means it is safe to proceed.

    If there were NO violence in Baghdad, that would mean to Mr. Kristol that we have lost, whatever that means, since no one has yet defined "winning."  I assume that by Mr. Kristol's standards, "winning" would be a state of complete anarchy and slaughter, and despite the hopeful signs, we haven't yet achieved that goal to his satisfaction.

    RePafk ... Please don't be obtuse.. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    What he meant was that we are now fighting the terrorists that we should have been after weeks ago.

    And you knew that.


    If he meant that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    why didn't he say it?

    I'm not going to let you spin this crap any further than it has been already.  He said what he said, and it doesn't mean anything other than what he said, no matter how much you wish it were so.

    Kristol said that the increase in violence was a sign that we were "winning."  Every other inference springs from that.

    It's too bad that you can't face what this fool, who has been as wrong about everything connected with Iraq as you have, is saying to this day.

    I said it was a bad idea before the invasion, and nothing has happened to change my opinion.  I wonder how much good we could have done and how many lives we could have saved with half a trillion dollars (borrowed from the Communist Chinese) if we hadn't spent it wrecking stuff and killing people.  Shoot, for a measly billion of that, Saddam probably would have retired to the Riviera and we wouldn't have had to kill anyone.


    RePack (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:14:20 AM EST
    You'll have to ask him why he said what he did.

    In the meantime, how about a transcript of the program. That way we'll know what he said, now what you tell us he said.


    More like (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    the Curtis LeMay approach.

    Or the (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    Tim LaHaye approach.

    That Vietnam synopsis (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    was a hell-on-wheels on topic post also.

    Btw, Fighting is not a synonym for winning. Pickett charged up a hill that he should have gone up weeks earlier.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    I know you would like to ignore the facts about what the antics of the Left cost during Vietnam, but they are as real as the killings showed us.

    If you can't stand the heat, Jondee, why bring the subject uo??


    What he really meant was.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    he forgives "friends" like Jim for perpetuating the pernicious myth that they killed Christ.

    The "Surge" (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    "Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as lost cause."

    I guess all these disgruntled troops are to be condemned for not supporting, um, the troops.  And for giving comfort to an enemy much closer to them than to any stateside liberal dissenter.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    They've been surfing the web while they should have been fighting al-qaeda. They ran across Talkleft and some other blogs and their minds were poisoned by all the leftist "emboldening the enemy" comments they read.

    Dadler caught with his bias showing. (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    "To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy,

    That's a true statement. No one has said that it would be quick and easy.

    And then we have this:

    Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.

    "I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave."

    Now, can you tell me why you didn't read the article and include it in your comments?

    And can you tell me why the editors didn't used that as a title?

    Let me help. You are biased. The editor is biased.

    As for the soldiers, they should learn to keep quiet. The journalist (?) who wrote this isn't their friend.


    Dementia setting in ppj? (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    "To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy,

    ppj responds:

    That's a true statement. No one has said that it would be quick and easy.

    No one said that it would be quick and easy? How easily they forget. Next we will be hearing that no one ever said Sadaam had WMD's.


    Squeaky (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:56:06 PM EST

    I was writing of what the view is of coming in with additional troops.

    Evidently you are living in the past.

    That's concentrating on smearing rather than looking at the real world will do for you.

    Ta Ta!!


    Really? (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    I was writing of what the view is of coming in with additional troops.
    What a coincidence as that is the new effluvia wafting out of the wingnuttia hot air vents.

    Quite a coincidence that quick and easy was part of the WH lube job that helped get us into the war. And as far as living in the past, are you suggesting that we sweep all the lies that led up to the war under the rug? Sure sounds like it.


    Mission (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:58:42 PM EST
    People (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    When ppj he brings out the General Giap argument, this is the point when you should realize you've been duped.

    Of all ppj's little quirks, my favorite is always this one about General Giap, Walter Cronkite and the Tet Offensive. It really is precious.

    I know, lives are being lost and ppj feels the need to F**K with your minds. Maybe he even believes it. There are many seemingly rational people, who will tell you in a perfectly normal tone of voice while discussing organic gardening that actually there are fairies and Gnomes watching over the land and you have to honor and praise them through certain rituals, if you want to be accepted by a piece of land and you want your garden to produce nourishing food for you and your family(Oops, did I reveal too much about myself--Well, see, there you go, a seemingly rational Peaches...or not so rational, anyway). I find it amusing, because, he is taken so seriously.

    As if what wins wars is just how we all feel about it and not whether or not one side is inflicting damage on another. Wait a minute, maybe ppj really is on to something. I mean often wars mean one side has lost momentum or morale--even if they have the upper hand in manpower and armanents. In fact this is often the case in occupying or invading armies. PPJ, the historian, must certainly know this. But, this makes his point trivial, none-the-less. Certainly, ppj knows that there were anti-war protestors who were out on the streets at the beginning of the war and these protestes did very little to influence the congress, public opinion, and the enemies morale. The only way for public opinion to change would be for our occupying forces to get bogged down in a quagmire and for a civil war to break out and for our goals in our occupying Iraq to suddenly get so confused that the occupying troops start questioning the mission. Well, some of us did predict this-but I don't think we should be held accountable for having a little foresight.

    ppj's last card is fear. A nuclear Iraq and Muslims coming to kill us all. To which I say, the same thing I say to the believer who tells me if I  don't accept certain beliefs that I will burn for eternity. Fine, I'll take my chances. Cya.


    Well Put Peaches (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    Although I think it is a big insult to all the faeries and gnomes to be lumped together with ppj's BS.

    You are asking for trouble.


    Peaches (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    As if what wins wars is just how we all feel about it

    I find your denial of the importance of morale to military operations funny. Could you please provide me some references supporting that contention??

    To sweeten the pot, I'll even tell you that I flat out don't believe you can do it.

    Oh wait! Now you say morale is important... But you just can't make that last small connection...

    The demonstrations and statements demanding that we bring the troops have helped the morale of the enemy.

    And yes, it started small, but like a cancer it has grown, and we see the results today.

    That point is made on bedrock. It won't go away.


    Well, ppj, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peaches on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    As Edger would say, you missed the point.

    The protests were not that small at the beginning of the war. It was only that you had the majority of Americans believing the lies. Protests ndidn't change the opinions of Americans, the reality of the war on the ground did.

    Read carefully, ppj. Morale and reality go hand in hand. Morale of our troops are down for a reason and it has nothing to do with protests. It has to do with incompetence and a hopeless situation.


    That's right Dadler (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    What don't you get? People who have served, and are serving in Iraq, aren't qualified to comment on the Iraq debacle.



    Edger's bias (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    Well, you did have this to say:

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Think that indicates a bit of bias??


    The bias of being biased against bias (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    "Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause."  

    This is the verbatim headline of the article I linked, Jim.  How I'm guilty of anything for using the exact headline is beyond reason.  The only bias that shows, as my entire post did, was towards reality.  

    Also, I intended to remark on the positive quotes you cited, but in the actual context in which they were used in the article -- that is, that they illustrate the difference of opinion, the disconnect between ground soldier and officer.  

    As the article states,

    "Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily."  

    Then, a few paragraphs later, in obvious contrast, the reporter transitions with,

    "Their officers were more optimistic."  Added emphasis mine.

    That is the precise context.  Which you did not use in your reply.  

    However, in my original post I only chose to hilight the obvious point about dissent in the ranks -- hence my troops not supporting the troops punchline.  This, the actual content and context of my post, you mostly ignored except for ten or fifteen words that amounted to saying everyone from civilian to soldier should just shut up and go along, no matter how absurd and murderous and counterproductive is the thing with which you are vacantly going along.

    And I think you can guess what I think of that.


    Dadler's bias (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:18:07 AM EST
    You chose an article with that particular bias.

    You failed to include the positive statement.

    That's plain as the nose of your face.

    Quit ducking. We knew your bias already.


    Your response is irrational (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    I gave you a factual, logical, rational response, and you simply choose not to hear it.  Can you really not read an entire article and grasp what it's about?  Come on, man, simple logic says that if I wanted to purposefully omit something I felt completely invalidated my argument, I never would've linked to the entire article in the first place.  Give me a break.  

    Now, if you want to respond with a rational argument about why the officer's view is correct and the foot soldiers' views are not, then please do.  


    And of course (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    it goes without saying that those who haven't served are also not qualified to comment on the Iraq debacle.

    So everyone, whether they've served or just been servile, "should learn to keep quiet".

    </more sarcasm>


    Some folks ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    ... will do anything to defend wars started on lies; e.g. Vietnam/ the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq/WMDs.

    OT for Edger, Misplaced Priorities is up.


    Thx, Sailor (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    Edger's commenting guidelines. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Holy S**T!!! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    No one has said that it would be quick and easy.

    That's ALL they said!!!!!!!

    What a BS liar!

    Jim (none / 0) (#85)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    History has proven both you and your buddy Giap totally wrong. Look at Vietnam today. Bush was there just last year signing trade deals. We were correct then and we're correct now.

    What a waste. The war too.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:49:31 PM EST
    for bringing Vietnam up. My fault, wont happen again. LOL

    Btw, the part left out of Jim's latest installment of Fairy Tales of Omission is that the degree and strength of opposition to the U.S's presence and NVA troop strength had been so grossly downplayed by the Peter, Wendy and Jims ("just say you believe in faires") laboring away -- as people like McNamara now admit -- in their self delusion, that when Tet occurred it came as a shock to almost everyone and the demoralizing effect had more to do the collision between reality and fantasy than any theoretical God-like powers possessed by that pinko Uncle Walter.

    Lets see a direct Giap quote (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    in which he ever mentions Walter Cronkite, Btw.

    From the dreaded leftists at George Mason Univ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    Can we put the Giap allegation in its proper grave already. PP just likes to spout inceniary nonsense. Its a mistake to pay him any attention at all.

    Did General Giap Say the Vietnam War Was Won on the Streets of America?
    Jonathan Winkler, University of Maryland, College Park, writing on H-Diplo (Oct. 25, 2004):

    Curt Cardwell has raised the question of the origin of the claim, supposedly by General Giap, that the anti-war protesters contributed to the success of the North Vietnamese in the war.

    Ed Moise has already tackled this one [in a review of] Vo Nguyen Giap and Van Tien Dung, How We Won the War. Philadelphia: Recon Publications, 1976. 63 pp.

    This book has been the subject of several unfounded rumors on the Internet. The first one began in the late 1990s. Supposedly, General Giap had written in How We Won the War that in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Communist leaders in Vietnam had been ready to abandon the war, but that a broadcast by Walter Cronkite, declaring the Tet Offensive a Communist victory, persuaded them to change their minds and fight on. This rumor was entirely false. Giap had not mentioned Cronkite, and had not said the Communists had ever considered giving up on the war.

    Several variants of this rumor appeared in 2004. In these, Giap is supposed to have credited either the American anti-war movement in general, or John Kerry's organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) in particular, for persuading the Communist leaders to change their minds and not give up on the war. Giap is sometimes said to have made this statement in How We Won the War, sometimes in an unnamed 1985 memoir. All versions of the rumor are false. Neither in How We Won the War, nor in any other book (the 1985 memoir is entirely imaginary), has Giap mentioned Kerry or Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or said that the Communist leaders had ever considered giving up on the war."

    desertswine (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    I provided a link.

    You do that.

    What does that tell us??


    Link to (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    Edger repeats (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    Sigh.... That's a repeat of what he copied.

    That's not a link proving it true.


    aka: b.s (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    second thought, I'll settle for any direct Giap quote that backs up what you alledge.

    Dont be shy.

    When realitys liberal bias (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    rears its ugly head, just make things up.

    It's just... (none / 0) (#93)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    something reich-wingers tell each other to make themselves feel more righteous and relevant.

    But..... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    ...that would mean they don't feel very righteous and relevant now. But of course they'll be in denial about that, too.

    I doubt that the big war supporters... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    ...here have ever read any of Osama's speeches. He is far more intelligent and articulate than most people believe, and he is absolutely a better tactician than any we have had running bush's war in Iraq.

    A small EXCERPT:

    All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. 

    This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

    All Praise is due to Allah.

    So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah. 

    Sure sounds like he's scared spitless of bush and the much vaunted, now broken, military machine of America, doesn't it?

    Why is it that if you compare the speeches of people like OBL and Ahmadinejad to a speech by bush, bush comes up woefully short by comparison? While the former speak and write like statesmen and historians, as well as leaders, bush sounds like exactly what he is: a former cheerleader from Connecticut pretending to be a rough, tough, six-gun totin', pick-up drivin', ten-gallon hat wearin' fool, IMO.

    Not to be critical, just noticing the difference.

    Tactically speaking, it won't take very much longer to finally finish off our economy and actually bankrupt America. Strategically speaking, OBL's plans for defeating us in this manner is very sound. We're already approaching a trillion bucks wasted, and the second trillion (and possibly third) will be spent at an ever greater pace.

    bush cannot even articulate what "winning" will look like or how we will achieve it. Our wartime president. Right.