Until September

The backdrop of today's vote of the GOP/Blue Dog Iraq Supplemental Alternative, is the Beltway delusion that come September, as Greenwald outlines:

The single greatest and most transparent delusion in our public discourse right now -- and that is a distinction for which there is always an intense competition -- is that Something Weighty and Significant is Going to Happen In September with regard to the Iraq War.

September, you see, is the real turning point, the real Day of Reckoning. . . . That is the read deadline for George W. Bush.

. . . But all that is going to happen In September is that we are going to await with baited breath for General David Petraeus -- he of infallible wisdom, judgment and honesty, and unquestionable objectivity -- to descend upon Washington and reveal whether there is Real Progress being made (by him) in Iraq.

. . . And, needless to say, General Petraeus will, cautiously though emphatically, declare that progress is being made, though there is much work that remains to be done. And therefore we must redouble our resolve and stay until The Job is Done.

Well my friends, if Democrats REALLY BELIEVE this September nonsense, then we are doomed. Greenwald says "The central unyielding truth in our political landscape is that -- no matter what -- the War in Iraq is not going to end before the end of the Bush presidency." If that is true, then we will be debating Iraq in 2010, and likely 2012 as well. Democratic or Republican, the next President will not want to "lose Iraq."

< On Iraq: Something In The Beltway Water | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Colonial Period? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    Democratic or Republican, the next President will not want to "lose Iraq."


    Colonial Period (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    in about it's 85th year, now.

    How long until we are as old as France? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    I want to surrender to spending my life drinking really good wine, eating really good food, and making love with my face.  Can't wait for Jim to say something now.

    We're all just Charlie Brown (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    Believing Lucy is finally gonna let us kick that football.


    I feel unbelievably sick. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Pneumatikon on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    It blows my mind that a bunch of psychos and their cowardly enablers have such unimaginable control over my life; including and especially my ability to get a good paying job. Or have a say in how my tax dollars are spent. Just yesterday this witch comes over from China, treats the leaders of my congress with contempt, and admits her country won't float its currency because that interferes in its ability to steal jobs from Americans. Next stop? The White House, where I'm told she'll get a more sympathetic reception.

    How did America get so screwed up?

    Spinach! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    Generic Press release:

    Today I secured needed funding for relief of our District's ___ farmers.

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    how much hope and high expectation and feeling of vindication there was on the morning of November 8, 2006?

    What the hell do they think they have to sell next year?

    Heyyyy! Take at look at this baby! A brand new DLC 2008 war!

    Christ, you could comb your hair in that brand new super glossy paint job.

    This one is guaranteed to get you fu*ked!

    Goes like stink, too...

    this is just DC BS (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Patriot Daily on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    Last April Petraeus says come September, blah, blah. So, lawmakers huddle around this September report which Petraeus now admits is a September surprise of nothing but hype:

    Three months into the job, General David Petraeus says it is difficult to predict how well the surge of troops in Baghdad will succeed before the full number of troops arrive and that he would not have a definitive answer about prospects for stability by September, when he is to report back to Congress.

    "I think generally is is still early days. We are literally still just setting the footprint if you will to do what we intend to achieve but until we get all those forces in and have really worked with them for a while I think it's difficult to see what's going to happen," he told me in an interview Tuesday evening.

    No report on prospects. Too early. Just setting down our footprints.>

    Any Dem who uses this bs hype as cover for voting to cave in to bush -- well, his or her opponent, independent or goppie -- may just have my vote next time. I am tired of hearing at election time that we have to vote for dems because the goppie is so much worse. Well how much worse when the dems get in office and then vote like goppies. sick of it.

    Just setting down our footprints huh? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    Did he fill in the footprints of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib or something?

    Probably in July (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fritz on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    I hope AQ takes the same bait about September too.  Bush even made reference to August as a potential problem month when questioned about setting dates.  Since AQ's allies are the media and their only success has been to kill innocent civilians & our troops to gain defeat from Democrats; Petreaus will report in July.   I wouldn't be surprised when he finished his political plans with State this week, he let the Democratic Leadership know this.  He probably told them that if the Iraqi government doesn't implement soon, September 07 or March of 08 will not matter.  So my guess, they felt all is lost anyway, Petreaus has enough money to continue, why hold funds for a failed Bush policy that will be evident in July?  We funded our troops, Bush failed don't blames us.

    I heard Bush say that bull about August (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    and good lord it's all so predictable isn't it?  If August is a great month the Petraeus/Bush plan is working and we can't quit now and allow the insurgents to murder innocent Iraqis.  If August is a horrible month the insurgency is in it's last throes and a final fight to the death, if we give up now we lose a moment before we could have won and we  allow a young democracy to be murdered and provide the terrorist with a strong hold in the ME cuz Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not terrorist strongholds they are allies.

    Heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:42:14 PM EST

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#15)
    by Fritz on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Since I have been here so long, I've even learned how to be a cynic.  Perhaps they are concerned that Petreaus might actually show progress, thus making the Democrats look really bad.  How was that?  Do you think I could join the Tent?

    Hmm (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    What Tent are you looking to join?

    Seems to me you agree with the elephants.

    It is a position I grant you. I am not in accord with it. I urge the legislators in my tent to represent those of us in our tent, not those in your tent.


    Just a little levity (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fritz on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    How can Democrats complain about the Iraqi government's seeming inability to get things done, when they themselves couldn't reach an accord themselves about Iraq?  One thing here is clear, this is the difference a government that has existed for 109 elections vs 1.  This is pragmatism with little downside.  This could also set a good example for the Iraqi government to follow.  I know in your heart that you want out, but sometimes, like many Bush supporters forget, elected representatives have to collaborate to govern.  

    I don't follow your point here (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    You're not the only one. ;-) (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:55:38 PM EST
    All of Fritzo's 'points' are a little subtle. Heh.

    Absolutely right (none / 0) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    that the next president, Rep or Dem, will not want to lose Iraq.

    It will be too easy for the next pres, R or D, to believe that the mess in Iraq is solely because Bush is incompetent, and that the new pres can win the war by changing course.

    Joe Klein's article (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bill from INDC on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    Greenwald, offers a shallow, ideologically-driven analysis. He offers a general take on the war in response to Joe Klein's article that focuses on al Qaeda, which has historically focused much of its operation in the Anbar province.

    Progress against AQ in Anbar is very dramatic and very real.

    To simplify: divide Iraq into 4 theatres: Shia South, Sunni West (Anbar), Baghdad, Kurdish North. The North is and has been a huge success.

    Baghdad has and is a huge problem, though some reports indicate very mild progress by a just-beginning surge ... though that in turn does not solve the fundamental political problem of bridging the sectarian divide.

    The Shia South was quiet, but is now getting much more dicey, especially as the UK draws downa nd Iran asserts influence.

    And the Sunni West (al Anbar) has turned into a success since late 2006 and early 2007, as the locals have decided to turn against al Qaeda, who had been beheading people and detonating truck bombs left and right.

    This progress is real. With respect to what Klein is reporting on, Greenwald doesn't know what the Hell he's talking about.

    And as he maligns Joe Klein's "secret sources," he does it out of ignorance. Here's a non-secret source: I spent January in Anbar and maintain many contacts there. The shift is indeed dramatic, and Al Qaeda in Iraq is indeed getting its ass kicked.

    This is a distinct issue from the overall political problem with the central government in baghdad, but Greenwald picks apart the former to make a largely unrelated point about the latter.

    And it's ignorant, just ignorant.

    You guys can make comments about "blah blah bah," etc., but the situation is pretty complex. And it really takes a bit of honesty, diligence and forced tabling of political ideology to even begin to get a handle on it. Not everyone can put in that level of effort, but we can avoid sneering commentary about topics that we're not fully briefed on. Or at least open our minds to get briefed.

    I do not believe I mentioned Joe Klein at all (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    in my piece.

    This is a comment best made at Greenwald's blog.

    It is not germane to my post, imo.


    Your Piece (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bill from INDC on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    in my piece.
    This is a comment best made at Greenwald's blog.

    It is not germane to my post, imo.

    Your piece approvingly links Greenwald's post, the entire basis of which is skewering Klein's credulity with military sources. And he is 100% wrong in this criticism, on this topic.

    The fact that Greenwald uses this skewering of Klein's assessment of Al Qaeda as a more general post on the war's futility, and you continue his off-topic topic, is besides the fact that you are approvingly linking shallow and misinformed commentary to make your own point.

    Essentially, you're approvingly linking a guy who doesn't know what the ** he's talking about. You are disseminating distorted information, whatever your overall assessment of the war.

    As a counterpoint, I'm offering my perspective that Greenwald's analysis - and the analysis of this post by extension - are not well-versed enough to critique the overall situation in Iraq, much less the specificity of Klein's original article.


    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    I purposefully discussed the September portion of the Greenwald article precisely to not get bogged down in the Klein critique.

    Nothing I quote is relevant to Joe Klein or what he wrote.

    Similarly, nothing you wrote is relevant to what I posted on.

    The discussion of the "situation in Iraq" is yours. My discussion pertains to the situation in Washington, DC.


    Agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    Greenwald's piece may be absolute garbage with regard to the Klein's work. But I didn't even know Greenwald was writing about the Klein. As BTD says, the September question is entirely different from the current state of affairs in Iraq.

    Nobody believes anything will happen in September. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Avedon on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    I called Cardin's office and asked why he voted for this stupid bill, and the guy on the phone said something about how the Senator believes we have to support the troops.  This is such obvious crap that it leaves me breathless.  Cardin caved in to White House spin and that's all.

    That's what it is: They believe the Republicans will accuse them of abandoning the troops and that "people" will believe it, so they have to give Bush what he wants.

    Everyone should be checking out how their reps voted and calling to thank them if they voted no and tell them they are cowards if they voted yes.