COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The Nightmare of Andrew J. Bacevich (hattip: Trish)



"There was a time in recent memory, most notably while the so-called Vietnam Syndrome infected the American body politic, when Republican and Democratic administrations alike viewed with real trepidation the prospect of sending U.S. troops into action abroad. Since the advent of the new Wilsonianism, however, self-restraint regarding the use of force has all but disappeared. During the entire Cold War era, from 1945 through 1988, large-scale U.S. military actions abroad totaled a scant six. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, they have become almost annual events. The brief period extending from 1989's Operation Just Cause (the overthrow of Manuel Noriega) to 2003's Operation Iraqi Freedom (the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) featured nine major military interventions. And that count does not include innumerable lesser actions such as Bill Clinton's signature cruise missile attacks against obscure targets in obscure places, the almost daily bombing of Iraq throughout the late 1990s, or the quasi-combat missions that have seen GIs dispatched to Rwanda, Colombia, East Timor, and the Philippines. Altogether, the tempo of U.S. military interventionism has become nothing short of frenetic.

"As this roster of incidents lengthened, Americans grew accustomed to -- perhaps even comfortable with -- reading in their morning newspapers the latest reports of U.S. soldiers responding to some crisis somewhere on the other side of the globe. As crisis became a seemingly permanent condition so too did war. The Bush administration has tacitly acknowledged as much in describing the global campaign against terror as a conflict likely to last decades and in promulgating -- and in Iraq implementing -- a doctrine of preventive war.

"In former times American policymakers treated (or at least pretended to treat) the use of force as evidence that diplomacy had failed. In our own time they have concluded (in the words of Vice President Dick Cheney) that force "makes your diplomacy more effective going forward, dealing with other problems." Policymakers have increasingly come to see coercion as a sort of all-purpose tool. Among American war planners, the assumption has now taken root that whenever and wherever U.S. forces next engage in hostilities, it will be the result of the United States consciously choosing to launch a war. As President Bush has remarked, the big lesson of 9/11 was that "this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense." The American public's ready acceptance of the prospect of war without foreseeable end and of a policy that abandons even the pretense of the United States fighting defensively or viewing war as a last resort shows clearly how far the process of militarization has advanced."


Andrew J. Bacevich
2005

Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University. A graduate of West Point and a Vietnam veteran, he has a doctorate in history from Princeton and was a Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He is the author of several books, including the just published The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War.







**********************************


NEWS RELEASES from the United States Department of Defense

No. 582-07 IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 14, 2007

Media Contact: (703) 697-5131/697-5132

Public/Industry(703) 428-0711

DoD Identifies Army Casualty


The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich
, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq.He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.


124 comments:

  1. "Thinking no less of them,
    Loving our country the more,
    We sent them forth to fight for the flag
    Their fathers before them bore."

    "Oh! The dread field of battle!
    Soon to be strewn with graves!
    If brothers fall, then bury them where
    Our banner in triumph waves."


    May Andrew J Bacevich Rest in Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WAR COSTS,AND IT IS DEEP

    Shiloh lays claim to 23,746 casualties identified as 3,482 killed, 16,420 wounded and 3,844 missing. Ninty-four general officers and regimental commanders are included in the overall casualty list; 50 Union officers opposed to 44 Confederate officers. This carnage took two days and there were thirty or forty more days of similar dying and pain to come over the next four years, war is that horrible

    Not one of these dead in the first great battle of the Civil War sought death. They sought what they believed was right.

    We are far removed today from that time, but the common denominator of war is death. We did not invite a strategy of offense it was trust upon us for no nation seeking to endure can remain only a target to then go on a counter offensive.

    We are engaged with our oldest long term foe, Islam, that in it's most recent itieration has once again reaffirmed, as it has throughout it's history, our death as well as the deaths of our allies and friends.

    I have known warriors my entire life. Not one would have backed away from their duty. Our respect for the rights of man drive a Wilsonian desire for the freedom of all mankind and for almost 250 years we have aided the underdog, freed the oppressed, and sought peace.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of Islam for the last twenty five years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves with in conducting ourselves other than we have been these past many years.

    The words of Patrick Henry are no lesss true today then they were when he spoke them on Amrch 23, 1775;
    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!

    Our destiny is war, and it always has the price of a Shiloh attached to it. So far we have been fortunate to have suffered so little.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Replacing Musharraf with another strongman who would better serve US interests is a possibility but it is not clear whether this solution is workable due to the lack of suitable leaders," an intelligence brief from the independent, US-based Power & Interest News Report concluded.

    "Unless Washington has found a credible successor who will continue to support US policies, then its interests call it to continue to work with Musharraf despite his shortcomings."

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Communism for the 21st Century

    A great article on multiculturalism as the new communism. Fromthe Brussels Journal no less.

    MuticulturalCommunism for the 21st Century

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Mr. 2164th.

    But here's what was left off:

    "Given the very brief mention here a few days ago of the general, decades-long drift in the nature of US military operations, perhaps it is time to consider whether promiscuous military intervention engenders over time an increasing, even inevitable, lack of seriousness in all military undertakings."

    Because the physical defense of the nation is one of the few legitimate and necessary responsibilities of the federal government, it is vitally important that foreign action concretely coincide with the national defense. To think that they can be uncoupled, as they have been, for decades without impact on our way of war as well as way of life, is naive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The initial reporting on the incident varied widely, with the first reports intimating Pakistani security forces or an al Qaeda mole shot and killed the NATO soldier

    The first report by Reuters quoted an Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman as saying "a Pakistani officer rose up and fired at U.S. soldiers, resulting in the deaths of two soldiers and wounding of two others." The Pakistani military reported that 2 of its soldiers and 3 U.S. soldiers were wounded after "firing came from the Afghan side" of the border. Later, NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) reported "one ISAF service member was killed and two ISAF service members and two ISAF civilian members were wounded when they were ambushed by unknown assailants near Teri Mangel, Pakistan." The Pakistani government labeled them as "miscreants" - which is code for al Qaeda. One Pakistani soldier was killed and 2 were wounded during the attack.


    Bill Roggio

    ReplyDelete
  7. Atomic Agency Concludes Iran Is Stepping Up Nuclear Work

    VIENNA, May 14 — Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is now beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to the agency’s top officials.

    Here we go....

    Nasty ole Iran and their Nuclear Program for Peace

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trish said in part:

    To think that they can be uncoupled, as they have been, for decades without impact on our way of war as well as way of life, is naive.

    In show business there is an old saying.You buy the premise you buy the bit.

    I believe her premise is without merit and thus reject the conclusion. For decades we chose MAD and containment as outline in the "Long Telegram" by Geo.Keenan to counter the Soviet threat. Todays strategy,as I pointed out in my 8:35 post was thrust upon us by an implacable foe, our first foreign foe going back 250 years. A good read of that post will clarify this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tiger mentioned Law of the Sea Treaty

    The first epiphany came early in his administration, when we gathered in a formal National Security Council meeting in the Cabinet Room. Secretary of State Alexander Haig opened by lamenting that the Law of the Sea Treaty was something we didn't like but had to accept, since it had emerged over the previous decade through a 150-nation negotiation. Mr. Haig then proceeded to recite 13 or so options for modifying the treaty -- some with several suboptions.

    Such detail, to put it mildly, was not the president's strong suit. He looked increasingly puzzled and finally interrupted. "Uh, Al," he asked quietly, "isn't this what the whole thing was all about?"

    "Huh?" The secretary of state couldn't fathom what the president meant. None of us could. So Mr. Haig asked him.

    Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, wasn't not going along with something that is "really stupid" just because 150 nations had done so what the whole thing was all about -- our running, our winning, our governing? A stunned Mr. Haig folded up his briefing book and promised to find out how to stop the treaty altogether.

    That set the tone for the first Reagan administration.


    Which Mr Bush and Company have failed to match, being tone deaf instead.

    The Heritage Foundation says this about Mr Bush and the Treaty:

    The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.

    The Bush Team has alreafy lost the gains made by Mr Reagan in Nico Land, with Mr Ortega back in the Presidency, there. Now they will relinguish more of Mr Reagan's legacy.

    Crap, Mr Bush and his team, not RINO, but a CINO, conservative in name only. A description of the Bush Team's agenda at it's most accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. OIF was not thrust upon us anymore than the past 20 years' actions were, sparrow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hard to believe some defend an administration that has become a complete stranger to the truth.

    I have spent the last 2 hours watching Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
    Two more different men you could not find.

    "Man," in the case of GWB.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Equally hard to believe the truth resides so resollutely with one writer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. GWB's Admin represents a shrunken shell, self-rationalization it's only tactic, presented as policy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sheriff Joe is a wonder.

    More tents, his first answer to most questions.

    If you come to Phoenix and get busted for DUI of some such, do it in the winter. GP Mediums suck hind teat, when it's over 100 degrees in the shade. Those tents, they're not in the shade.

    Chain gangs, cleaning vacant property in the County, affected my nephews, the very sight of it, in their early teens.

    Could have been Governor, but like top cop, more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. He KNOWS that enforcing the law effects everyone subject to it.
    "Wonders" why no one but him, esp the FEDS do NOT enforce the law.

    POTUS plays it by ear, often Coni's highly trained ear.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Taking on the Saddam clan had nothing to do with a 250 year conflict with Mussulmen.

    Iraq was the most secular of Arabic Middle Eastern countries.
    More secular than even Turkey, during the Saddam days.

    The War in Iraq, not about Islam, but despotism. I'll go find the quotes from Mr Bush, they're easy enough to find.

    The democracy project, about despotism, not Islam. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, proof is in the Constitutions which we empowered, in both locales, post invasion.

    Islamic by Law, the both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Trish,

    You are free to be delusional about OIF.
    Once again,slowly....all the intel from all nations we consulted said he had WMD's. We knew he had used them. He had earlier attacked Kuwait. He harbored terrorist, how about Abul Nidal? He had contact and dealings with AQ..
    We had been attacked numerous times by AQ, one of his allies if not proxies. Remember 9-11-02.

    He was attempting to acquire atomic capability.

    Jeez, over and over and over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The United States trying, unsuccessfully, to force a secular solution on a religious problem.

    So tone deaf, our side cannot hear the tune, for all the banging on the drums.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ed,
    The US should do the World a favor and Nuke Pakistan!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Doug,
    Your powers of reading instantly how history will work out is astonishing.

    I guess you assessment after the First Battle of Bull Run would have been that Abe Lincoln was an empty suit. Or that George Washington after the defense of New York could never win the war.

    God knows what you would have written after Peal Harbor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. THIRTY THOUSAND HATE SPEWING MADRASSAS!

    Hitler never had it so good.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 5 years of zero learning curve, Habu.
    Actually a negative curve, since GWB said all the right words 5 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  24. True enough sparrow, we thought Saddam was trying to get WMD capacity.

    But that, again, has nothing to do with Islam. Other Mussulmen have nuclear weapons, the development and deployment of those weapons being no cause for war, with Pakistan.

    Nuclear weapons aquisition in the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, India and North Korea never before being cause for war.

    It was not the weapons development that caused the War in Iraq, but an opportunity to use it as an excuse, in conjnction with the fervor created by the events of 9-11-01.
    An excuse so transparent, the US would not even make the effort to frame Saddam, after the fact. As habu mentioned yesterday.

    Just a timely excuse, that has run its' course.

    ReplyDelete
  25. That set the tone for the first Reagan administration

    The tone for the Reagan administration was set before he took office by his years of being a conservative.

    THE event that sealed the tone was the Iranians having our hostages they'd held for 444 days under a pusillanemous Carter AIRBORNE before RWR had finished his inaugural address.
    THEY knew who not to screw with ..
    It took Gorby until Reykjavik

    ReplyDelete
  26. But that, again, has nothing to do with Islam

    Saddam himself may have been secular but he was a major player in the ME which is all Islam and you can't, no matter how hard you try, unravel Islam from any event in the ME, any event.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Isn't Sparrowhills kind of a Gay Name?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Start with the most remote, 'Rat.
    Long War, ya know.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's a Bumper Sticker:

    "Nuke Pakistan Now!"

    ReplyDelete
  30. They could spend the next millenium at BC wailing at the inhumanity.

    Ignoring that mankind was saved from destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  31. habu mentions the start of wars, the early battles. Not of tactical strategies gained from 250 years of combat experience, with the foe.

    Nor even battles at the end of wars, five years after Bull Run, Pearl Harbor, or Washington's defeat in New York, the War was over, the US victorious.

    Now the US has won the War in Iraq, but refuses to acknowledge it. Thereby losing the post war peace.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The United States trying, unsuccessfully, to force a secular solution on a religious problem.

    We.ve been trying for 250 years to solve all the problems Islams has forced upon every country it touches INCLUDING the United States.

    You may wish to fit secular into play as the prime mover but it never has been going all the way back to Muhammad.
    Like the old James Carvill sign hanging in the Bill Clinton campaign headquarters,

    "It's Islam stupid" ... alway it's Islam

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Carvill"

    Reminds me of yesterdays headline:

    "Lanny Davis Quits Bush Admin"

    WTF? (feigned surprise)

    Clinton's CHEIF LIAR!

    NEW TONE.

    ReplyDelete
  34. DR, If you want to go deeper into our wars go ahead, believe me I can keep up.

    Many things don't get mentioned because it's obvious that longer posts don't get read, like Trish's overlooking mine this morning.

    It's also very much like a court room. You bring in you experts, I'll bring in mine. At the end of the day nothing is accomplished but wasted time.

    Although watching Doug fall deeper and deeper into the morass of cynical based behavior is a hoot. Pity he hasn't much beyond that .

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do not have to disengage Islam from the events of the Middle East, habu.
    President Bush does.
    He speaks for US
    We should support his position in times of trouble and conflict, not try to erode it.
    Not under cut the President, in time of war.

    Islam IS NOT the problem.
    Mr Bush has said so repeatedly.

    Is Mr Bush so totally in error, about his strategy of a secular solution of installing democratic institutions?

    Instead of just replacing their bad despots with our good ones.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To me, the upshot of this thread is that the Evil Saddam was holding Islam in Check in Iraq.

    ...the rest is history.

    ReplyDelete
  38. right, sparrow:

    Details matter more than INSIGHT!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Paorcial:

    Parochial on Percodan.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh and Doug, if we ever meet face to face, look me right in the eyes and please repeat the SparrowHills/Gay name comment, please.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If I had 6 bylines, I could confuse you too Habu.

    If I could get you on some Biochemical Nomenclature would that seal my case?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ignorance of one fact proves my total ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  43. parochial..

    Sparrow Hills,Moscow..famous

    Doug shallow

    ReplyDelete
  44. DR,
    You may wish to suspend independent thought regarding the ME and Islam, but I don't.

    And I realise you're too patriotic to not want to follow the Presidents every policy, but let me tell you a little secret.

    He knows Islam is the problem. He also knows you can't eat an entire cow in one sitting. I peobably should explain that to you but since it is my firm conviction that we could spend all day trading information and positions only to end up exactly where we started I'm gonna let you and Doug and Trish off easy today. Use the time wisely. Learn some history and philosophy. Study International Relations Management ..that is one of your biggest weaknesses.
    You've got "Find a quote down pretty good though but they often don't fit the point you think your making. That will come with more experience and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Arpaio knows truth has power.
    repeat:

    GWB administration has become a stranger to the truth for quite some time.

    ReplyDelete
  46. A few parting words today for Doug...you are the resident pussy, no contest.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Islam has metastasized under Bush.

    AFTER 9-11.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You win the Allen prize of the day, Habu.

    I am honored.

    "Ad hominem always trumps truth."

    ReplyDelete
  49. WAR COSTS,AND IT IS DEEP

    Shiloh lays claim to 23,746 casualties identified as 3,482 killed, 16,420 wounded and 3,844 missing. Ninty-four general officers and regimental commanders are included in the overall casualty list; 50 Union officers opposed to 44 Confederate officers. This carnage took two days and there were thirty or forty more days of similar dying and pain to come over the next four years, war is that horrible

    Not one of these dead in the first great battle of the Civil War sought death. They sought what they believed was right.

    We are far removed today from that time, but the common denominator of war is death. We did not invite a strategy of offense it was trust upon us for no nation seeking to endure can remain only a target to then go on a counter offensive.

    We are engaged with our oldest long term foe, Islam, that in it's most recent itieration has once again reaffirmed, as it has throughout it's history, our death as well as the deaths of our allies and friends.

    I have known warriors my entire life. Not one would have backed away from their duty. Our respect for the rights of man drive a Wilsonian desire for the freedom of all mankind and for almost 250 years we have aided the underdog, freed the oppressed, and sought peace.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of Islam for the last twenty five years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves with in conducting ourselves other than we have been these past many years.

    The words of Patrick Henry are no lesss true today then they were when he spoke them on March 23, 1775;
    "They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!"

    Our destiny is war, and it always has the price of a Shiloh attached to it. So far we have been fortunate to have suffered so little.

    War scare the courage right out of some men. Others never have the courage to fight and let others do it for them .. but they still carp at the warrior, the man in the arena.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Islam has metastasized under Bush..Doug, the ignorant, the anti Semite, Jew hater..got your swastika flag up yet today?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't like having our Warriors killed by those caught and released.

    I don't like having our Warriors killed in the name of preserving a weapons filled mosque.

    I don't like having our border patrol agents given long jail terms for doing their job.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Ad hominem always trumps truth."
    Dougy-do..were we not separated by miles and miles it wouldn't be a verbal ad hominem.

    Tell me Doug, do you enjoy physical pain?

    ReplyDelete
  53. You go from my assertion to your ad hominem.

    As you do with your multiple personalities, you leave me confused.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Doug, what in the hell do you know about warriors?

    ReplyDelete
  55. The ignorant are often in that state.

    ReplyDelete
  56. And you are fully qualified to render a diagnosis on mutiple personalities because of ??

    ReplyDelete
  57. A mere comment on your posting under multiple names.
    Sorry if I wounded you deeply, or gave you the impression that I consider myself a psychiatric expert.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Our destiny is war..."

    That's what the Founders thought of Europe's destiny, which they wanted no part of - Europe, "that old bitch gone in the mouth."

    ReplyDelete
  59. That's an interesting interoperation, Trish.

    ReplyDelete
  60. War is not fought from the comfort and safety of one’s home or office. Sh*t happens, like the disintegration of the imperialist Soviet Union, which led to inevitable international chaos, calling for increased American intervention. That the “experts” such as Colonel Bacevich did not anticipate the inevitable fallout following the demise of the Soviet is the scandal, not the ameliorative application of American force in the two decades since. Even a cursory review of the Chin collapse would have been instructive.

    ___ “Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair was observing the 30th Infantry Division’s preparations for deployment to St. Lo in 1944 when the Army Air Corps accidentally dropped bombs on his position and he was killed. He was posthumously promoted to full general in 1945.”
    “Ironically, his son, Colonel Douglas McNair, chief of staff of the 77th Division, was killed two weeks later by a sniper on Guam.”Lieutenant-General Lesley J. McNair


    ___“Whitey McNair left an only son to carry on. This week the War Department announced that redheaded, 37-year-old Colonel Douglas McNair, a West Pointer and an artilleryman like his father, had been killed in action on Guam.”
    ”From My Own Men”

    There is no record of the grieving McNair family having (1) blamed the United States; (2) called for the end of an unnecessary, ill chosen European adventure, when it was known the real enemy was Japan; (3) sought retribution against the US Army Air Corps; and (4) accused Franklin D. Roosevelt of war crimes.

    There is no record of Israelis, Zionists, and/or Jews having been involved in the deaths of either Lt. Gen. McNair or Col. McNair.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Try mightily to overlook this, it might brighten some of you dimmer lights.


    Reality on the Ground
    It’s not “lost,” but we could make it be.


    Iraq is a mess. Not so much in the sense of what Gen. David Petraeus is physically dealing with on the ground, but in the sense of what we have allowed the effort to morph into here at home and worldwide.

    We’re not losing the war — not by any true combat leader’s estimation — but we are struggling to get our arms around the conflict’s realities; and that in itself is undermining the effort.

    The biggest problems as I see it are the politicization of the war to include subtle attempts to micromanage ongoing “surge” operations; and not-so-subtle attempts to limit funding to troops; publish withdrawal dates; raise white flags on Capitol Hill; and withhold, twist, and manipulate facts: everything from the mainstream media’s skewed analysis of the facts within the 9/11 Commission Report (which few Americans have taken the time to actually read) to the outright dismissal of the possibility that there may well have been weapons of mass destruction in pre-invasion Iraq.

    Fact is, everyone believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — or an earnest program to develop or acquire them — and that the WMDs might have been spirited across the border into Syria (much like the Iraqi air force turned tail and flew to Iran prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991). But the Left’s four-year campaign to dismiss anything that might conflict with their own agenda, has enabled all opinion contrary to theirs to be dismissed as nothing less than the musings of crackpots.

    The Left has even written-off or ignored evidence of pre-invasion connections between Iraqi officials and terrorists, which was detailed by the 9/11 Commission Report and which continues to surface. And there were “connections,” perhaps not official working alliances (though we don’t know for sure), but certainly connections in the form of conversations, turning a blind eye to freedom of movement, and who knows what else.

    NECESSITY OF INVASION
    Based on my own wrestling with various geostrategic issues since 2001, as well as specific human and open-source intelligence (though declassified, also non-published) I’ve been privy to since the spring of 2003, I am convinced that both ousting Saddam Hussein and establishing some form of a Western-friendly democratic republic in the heart of West Asia were necessary. I say this based on the knowledge we had then, and I’m still not convinced today that the Iraq invasion was a mistake; though, mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war.

    My recent time in Iraq brought several additional realities home to me, not the least of which is the fact that we are wrong on many of our assumptions about the Iraqi people. In fact, many in Congress and many Americans across the country have wrongly concluded that all Sunni, Shiia, and Kurdish peoples hate and mistrust one another, they’ve all been killing one another for centuries, and they will never stop killing each other.

    The mistrust may be there for obvious reasons. But the hate is not, which is the primary reason foreign terror networks like al Qaeda — through car-bombings of innocents, gangland-style executions, and blowing up mosques — have tried to pit Sunni against Shiia.

    Al Qaeda fears America’s strategic position in the region. They know they cannot defeat us in any pitched battle. And they know their only chance is to defeat us by fomenting ethnic and religious hatreds in Iraq thus creating enough bloody chaos as to make the conflict appear unmanageable in the eyes of the American public.

    But let’s not forget, Sunni and Shiia were fighting shoulder-to-shoulder against Iranian Shiia during the Iran-Iraq War. They fought together in two — granted, very short and one-sided — conflicts against us. And today there are far more Sunni, Shiia, and Kurds serving together in the Iraqi armed forces and police than there are Iraqis fighting as insurgents.

    IRAQIS FIRST
    As one American soldier told me early last month at the chow hall in Camp Victory, Iraq, “Iraqis aren’t Sunni or Shiia first. They’re not religious fundamentalists or extremists. The majority are Iraqis first. In fact, they’ve been more secular than religious for decades.”

    Granted, there has been conflict between Sunni and Shiia since the death of the Prophet Mohammed in 632 A.D. and questions of his successor arose. Nearly 14 centuries later, the conflict still exists. It’s been with us since the invasion phase of the war in early 2003. But the killing between the two Muslim factions spiked when the Golden Dome Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra was bombed in early 2006. It was one of Shiia Islam’s holiest sites. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was responsible for the attack, but the Sunnis were blamed. Reprisal attacks began. And it was exactly the civil strife AQI was trying to spark.

    But the Left in Congress has both allowed al Qaeda to manipulate American public opinion, and they (the Left) have allowed the hatred of President Bush — going back to Florida 2000 — to fester into a nasty albeit successful campaign of misinformation aimed at distorting the facts for those whom they have accurately counted on not to read the 9/11 Commission Report, not to have access to intelligence beyond what politicians and a very small handful of disgruntled soldiers tell them, and not to be able to get their arms around the complexities and realities of Iraq.

    As part of that misinformation campaign, the Left has been successful in dehumanizing ordinary Iraqis, which to me defies logic because on the one hand, they’ll argue that Iraqis (supposedly incapable of ever governing themselves or stopping the sectarian violence) are not worth the blood of American GIs, yet on the hand other they’ll rail against the Bush administration for all the Iraqis who have been killed since the invasion in 2003.

    The congressional Right is also guilty because they have, for the sake of political fairness, allowed the Left to get away with contradictions and fact distortions practically unchallenged when there is so much at stake in Iraq.

    HELL-BENT ON KILLING?
    Last week, I received an e-mail from a reader who after reading my piece, “One hand can’t clap,” said:

    From where I sit, I can't imagine America staying any longer than it would take us to get our stuff packed up and get out of there. I simply don't think Iraq — or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter — is fixable. I don't see any of these wonderful virtues and qualities you so glowingly ascribe to them [the Iraqi people] — I just see primitive, hateful people who are hell-bent on killing, killing, killing.

    Regarding a vignette within the story where I described how several Iraqi soldiers tried to save the life of a dying cat, the reader said:

    I can't help wondering too, that if it had been a woman in the street being killed by one of her male relatives for daring to have her own mind — you know an HONOR killing — would those Iraqi soldiers have rushed in to help her and worked so hard to save her? I suspect not, since I'm quite certain cats have a higher value than women in ANY Islamic country.

    First of all, Iraqi men as a group don’t hate or devalue women. In fact, women have a voice in the new Iraq, which millions of Iraqi men and women have cast votes for. Second, Iraqis are not primitive people, nor are they “hell-bent” on killing. Fact is, they’re sick of the killing, because they live with it every day.

    The problem — through no fault of the reader’s — may be found in the first four words of her note: Because from where she sits, she doesn’t really know what is going on in Iraq. It’s simply far too complex to process into anything comprehensive from an 800-word newspaper story or a TV news segment broadcast from the roof of a building somewhere in the Green Zone.

    She’s also being fed a steady diet of politically charged drivel and actions from Harry Reid’s “lost war” to Nancy Pelosi’s not having time in her schedule to meet with Gen. Petraeus after the general flew halfway around the world to meet with her and others on the most important issue of our time.

    WE CAN’T ABANDON IRAQ
    After reading last week’s piece, another reader told me she was “infuriated” over the possibility that we might abandon these people.

    I too have become infuriated, because now after having been to Iraq — and eaten with Iraqis, talked with them, and held the hands of their children — my mind now has faces, voices, and smiles of real people who do matter, to go along with my military understanding of just how strategically vital Iraq is to the world.

    Iraqis aside, there are the U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq who are dealing with the same realities, who have so much more at stake in this than any of us, and who are wondering from what planet Congress is holding session when a U.S. Senate Majority Leader can make groundless declarations about the war being “lost” and still be taken seriously by a huge segment of the population.

    This is also about the standing and reputation of our country in the eyes of our current and future allies — in terms of our commitment to those allies when the going gets tough. There are many people worldwide who are convinced we abandoned the South Vietnamese people when the political pressure became too great for us at home. How will the world perceive us if we now abandon the Iraqi people for similar reasons? I would argue it would be generations before anyone ever trusted us again. Perhaps no one ever would.

    Success in Iraq is also about the morale and well-being of the U.S. military. Our forces would suffer in ways most D.C. politicians cannot begin to imagine if we were to retreat from Iraq.

    Then there are the Iraqi people — and any other peoples in that region of the world who have stood up to terrorism — and what would happen to any of them if the world’s most powerful Army, Navy, and Air Force withdrew in the face of AQI and the Iraqi insurgency.


    — A former U.S. Marine infantry leader, W. Thomas Smith Jr. writes about military issues and has covered war in the Balkans, on the West Bank, and in Iraq. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Habu,

    I'm confused. Why do the Shiia need 150,000 US troops to protect them?

    ReplyDelete
  63. So how we we overcome those perceptions of defeat, that everyone so admittingly exist?

    How does the President turn the tide at home, when he has hooked our wagon to the Iraqi Parliment?

    Other than to force the Iraqi to succeed.
    Nothing succeeds like success.

    It is not a military struggle, but the political and ideological one, that the Administration is losing. The US Army in Iraq cannot win that fight, here at home, for Mr Bush.

    It is not in their realm of operations.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
    A beautiful day for a neighbor.
    Would you be mine?
    Could you be mine?...

    It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
    A neighborly day for a beauty.
    Would you be mine?
    Could you be mine?...

    I've always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.
    I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you.

    So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
    Since we're together we might as well say:
    Would you be mine?
    Could you be mine?
    Won't you be my neighbor?
    Won't you please,
    Won't you please?
    Please won't you be my neighbor?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "OIF was not thrust upon us anymore than the past 20 years' actions were, sparrow."

    About as voluntary as Operation Torch.

    An ostensibly neutral nation that was willing to work with the enemy and whose territory was needed for the bigger picture.

    If OIF had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism, it would have been much easier - cause we could have ditched the whole immediate Iraqi Democracy crap.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Habu in his quote wrote:

    "Fact is, everyone believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — or an earnest program to develop or acquire them "

    Which is UTTER BULLSHIT. Unlike you Habu, not everyone got snowed by the Bush admin. information machine - there were numerous dissenting opinions (remember the Plame affair...Joe Wilson? to name just one prominent dissenter). Many nations chose not to participate because they found the evidence to be less then compelling. Immediately prior to the invasion inspectors had full access to Iraq and were flown about by US pilots to sites of their choosing. They did not find any but they were still looking. With regard to WMD the inspections were working.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "So how we we overcome those perceptions of defeat..."

    With perceptions of winning.




    Do I get a prize?

    ReplyDelete
  68. "remember the Plame affair...Joe Wilson?"

    Still selling horse manure.

    The West's intelligence agencies, as well as those of our "Arab allies" were just about unanimous.

    ReplyDelete
  69. More connection, sutler can be found detween aQ and Pakistan and aQ and Saudi Arabia than have ever beev found with regards Saddam and aQ.

    He played a minor part in their operations. Much less so than either the Saud or the Pakistani Intelligence Services.

    Such is reality with regards aQ.
    But neither the Sauds or the Pakis tried to kill the Presidents' father. They did assist in killing thousands of other US citizens, though, either through incompetence, benign neglect or active participation. Depending upon the viewers perspective.

    What comes next is all that matters, not how we got here, in the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  70. How do we achieve those perceptions, trish?

    Certainly not by staying the course, sending more troops or building another base.

    Success has always been defined by leaving. They stand up, we stand down. There are over 250,000 of them standing up. Let them have at it.

    Just like Mr al-Hakim keeps suggesting.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The only government in the world that openly celebrated 9-11 was Iraq's. Its pleasure was broadcast on state media agencies.

    It was perfectly reasonable to fear that Hussein would work with Al Qaeda for common ends.

    The secular nonsense is a red herring insofar as operational and tactical cooperation is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Cutler -

    Our Arab allies = reliable intelligence??

    There was even dissent within our own intelligence community. One example:

    " Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
    by Jonathan S. Landay


    WASHINGTON - The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

    As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

    The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

    The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

    But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.

    That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

    The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening." "

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0210-02.htm

    ReplyDelete
  73. So, cutler, the Bush Administrations' Democracy Project, is a "red herring".

    Our entire geo-political and ideological strategy is a red herring?

    Secularism is our sword, free and representitive government, decided upon by the people involved. As is their God Given Right.

    With all the other subsequent "rights" implied.

    ReplyDelete
  74. And in the bigger picture, the "Democratization project" was one of the few potential solutions for solving the problem in the long-term. It failed because it wasn't practical, but it was nonetheless attractive owing to the fact that there still are few real attactive alternatives that won't involve killing truly massive amounts of people.

    ReplyDelete
  75. (If you really believe there's a problem, you could just ignore that it even exists like Ash and worry about Christians here at home.)

    ReplyDelete
  76. "How do we achieve those perceptions, trish?"

    Hey, I gave my plan. Bring it all back to the 9-11 beginning (more than the admin deserves) while checking out.

    You've got your own stick-with-em idea.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Cutler -

    Our Arab allies = reliable intelligence??

    There was even dissent within our own intelligence community. One example:"


    INR was just as convinced that Iraq has WMDs as the DIA and CIA.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hussein's secularism, Desert Rat.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Failed!?!?

    It has not FAILED
    It has succeeded
    Mr Maliki said as much when meeting with Mr Cheney, just a day or two ago.

    Such defeatism.
    How has it failed?

    Are not the Representitives representing their constituents?
    They seem to be. They do not represent YOU and your wants and needs, but you're not an Iraqi.

    Things are peachy in Iraq, vacation time is coming for their Parliment, two months this very summer.

    Democratization has worked great in Palistine and Lebanon, the people are represented by their chosen leaders. We support them with Lawyers, Guns & Money.

    What failure? There's been no stinkin' failures, with Arabic democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I'm not the Bush Administration, Desert Rat.

    It failed because it isn't going to solve our terrorism problem and has in fact resulted in new problems.

    ReplyDelete
  81. That he was.
    Most of the trappings of Mussulmen he took on late in his reign, as the wahabbist movement gained ground. He used it against the Shia revolutionaries.

    He certainly was involved with some terrorists, had initial converstions with Osamas' people, but he was just getting his feet wet, the Sauds and the Pakistani were and are into supporting radical Mussulmen, up to their necks.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Democratization was always the bad way of putting it, anyway, since you can have illiberal, hostile, and aggressive democracies.

    Liberalization (classical, as we understand it) should have been the goal, but pushing them through their Enlightenment wasn't possible unless we leveled, occupied, and ran the entire area for a long, long time. Something that was not practical.

    ReplyDelete
  83. It has solved the problems of the Middle East, letting the people speak.

    Just look at the results.
    Negotiations are moving forward, everywhere.

    Negotiation are the key thing, for US. Jaw, jaw, jaw, then there is no war. We're even going to ask the Iranians for help, in Iraq.

    Ain't that grand!?

    ReplyDelete
  84. As Scheuer wrote, it was idiotic to think we could push hundreds of years of Western development history onto the region. They are what they are and choose to be, not what we want them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Desert Rat - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan still have the same problems they've always had.

    Saudi Arabia is the place of the two holiest places in Islam, and Pakistan is a large, nuclear armed country that is even more fucked up than Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ash, what color is the sky in your world?

    trish said...
    "Our destiny is war..."then some blah blah like it isn't true..
    Go read any history book Trish, find some good parts on long term peace, where war hasn't been our destiny..then make another swallowing sound.

    Ash said...
    Habu in his quote wrote:

    "Fact is, everyone believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — or an earnest program to develop or acquire them "

    Which is UTTER BULLSHIT
    >>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
    Maybe you should go back and review what Hillary,Dashle,John Kerry and all the big Dems said about WMD's..they ALL said ..Oh yeah Saddam's got'em and he's trying for nuclear next'
    Then review the open intel from GB,Germany,France,Italy,Japan, Australia,Russia..there were no dissenting voices..man you're a fucked up dude..you must hang with Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  87. So far, the Democratic Congress has been able to enact a mere 26 laws, 12 of which "changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area."

    Get 'er done Nancy..first 100 hours..gloating time.

    from Powerline

    ReplyDelete
  88. Habu,

    What does it tell you about your intelligence if you are damn sure something is true and it turns out to be false? You say you worked in intelligence in the long ago past - was there not dissent aplenty? Many arguments, positions papers, opinions at odds with each other? Many agreed that Saddam desired WMD, that he had programs in the past, but there was debate about whether they were current or not. The evidence was in no way conclusive. The most conclusive evidence came from the inspectors and it was 'we aren't finding any, but we'll keep looking' and it turns out there were none. The rationale that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Ash,
    Just keep moonwalk'n away from your 12:44 contribution that even had bullshit in caps.

    You're just a confused, fucked up child using crayons on the wall in a desparate attempt to gain some attention..fact is you rarely know what the fuck is going on.

    Hey everybody look at Ash's 12:44 and do it for the children.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Vegas odds are 5:4 that Doug makes the first smarmy comment about Jerry Falwell's death...

    ReplyDelete
  91. Deuce..

    Drinks all around..we broke the 100+comment barrier two hours before the market closes...damn respectible..I tried to keep 'em stirred up.

    One thing you learn in brokerage. Sometimes you gotta be a sneaky sonofabitch and pompous to get the desired result.

    ReplyDelete
  92. It was just a personal goal to get it done ... Captain, more bait, and keep the waters chummed..I can see some big fish out there.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Ash,
    Here more moonwalk material for ya...

    you said"Many nations chose not to participate because they found the evidence to be less then compelling."

    IF you're referring to Germany,France, and Russia, well golly it just turned out in the captured documents that they all had real sweet oil deals in place or incubating...some of the doc's even showed bribes were made ...imagine that bribes affected the brave French and Germans from backing the US. Bribes and oil deals...that's what they sold us out for while at the same time telling us their intelligence was that the WMD's were there.
    Moonwalk son,moonwalk

    ReplyDelete
  94. Feel the power don't ya folks?
    Fear the power don't ya folks?

    Exhausted of making asses out of yourselves...moonwalk'n dogs, moonwalk'n time.

    Go ahead Trish , you first, then mincing Dougy-do.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Falwell wasn't that bad a guy. Though he may have put his foot in his mouth a few times, nearly everybody does, and he sure looks better than some of the other evangelicals. Bakkkker, Swaggggart et al.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The Federal employees, at work, looking out for their personal interests.
    Give 'em more rope, boys, give 'em more rope.

    What a sorry state of affairs the Federal Government has turned into, wonder who's in charge, of the VA, now-a0days.

    Must be those corrupt Democrats, no?

    WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- Nearly two dozen officials who received hefty performance bonuses last year at the Veterans Affairs Department also sat on the boards charged with recommending the payments.

    Documents obtained by The Associated Press raise questions of conflict of interest in connection with the bonuses, some of which went to senior officials involved in crafting a budget that came up $1.3 billion short and jeopardized veterans' health care.

    The documents show that 21 of 32 officials who were members of VA performance review boards received more than half a million dollars in payments themselves.

    That'd be $500,000 divided 21 ways, just a bit shy of $29,000 a piece, on average.

    Nice bonus paid, from the increasing National debt.
    No wonder the war is going so poorly, the Administration fellows are feather bedding their own nests.

    21 Bigshots that did not remove themselves from the process.
    Such ethical standards theu maintain.

    Vote GOP Values, Vote Foley.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Are you saying you are a sneaky son of a bitch, and pompous too, Habu;);)??

    Or just when you want to be?:)

    ReplyDelete
  98. Here is an interesting story:

    "Gonzales Pressed Ailing Ashcroft on Spy Plan, Aide Says


    By DAVID STOUT
    Published: May 15, 2007

    WASHINGTON, May 15 — On the night of March 10, 2004, a high-ranking Justice Department official rushed to a Washington hospital to prevent two White House aides from taking advantage of the critically ill Attorney General, John Ashcroft, the official testified today.

    One of those aides was Alberto R. Gonzales, who succeeded Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General.

    “I was very upset,” said James B. Comey, who was deputy Attorney General at the time, in his testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.”

    Mr. Comey’s account offered a rare and titillating glimpse of a Washington power struggle, complete with a late-night showdown in the White House after a dramatic encounter in a darkened hospital room — in short, elements of a potboiler paperback novel. "

    snip

    "“I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that,” Mr. Comey replied.

    Mr. Comey recalled arriving at the darkened hospital room, where Mr. Ashcroft seemed hardly aware of his surroundings. For a time, only Mr. Comey and the Ashcrofts were in the room. Meanwhile, Mr. Mueller, who had not yet arrived, told Mr. Comey’s security detail by phone “not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances,” Mr. Comey testified.

    Minutes later, he said, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card entered the room, with Mr. Gonzales carrying an envelope. “And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval for a matter,” Mr. Comey related.

    “And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me,” Mr. Comey went on: He raised his head from the pillow, reiterated his objections to the program, then lay back down, pointing to Mr. Comey as the attorney general during his illness.

    When Mr. Mueller arrived, “he had a brief, a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general, and then we went outside in the hallway,” Mr. Comey said.

    Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card departed, but after a while, Mr. Card telephoned Mr. Comey and “demanded that I come to the White House immediately,” Mr. Comey said.

    “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States,” Mr. Comey said he told Mr. Card."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?hp

    ReplyDelete
  99. Barkeep, one for Habu, an honest up-front man, on Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Possumtater: Vegas odds are 5:4 that Doug makes the first smarmy comment about Jerry Falwell's death...

    What would Jerry Falwell, worm food or not, have to do with a war analysis blog? Unless we're going into Iran to trigger the second coming of the 12th Christ or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  101. We could ask Gonzo about that meeting, but I'd lay big money he'd not ecall it.

    He can't remember what he said and did, last November '06, let alone what was said and done, a couple nah, three years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  102. When whit or deuce starts the Falwell thread, they've got to top this for imagery.

    ReplyDelete
  103. In one case, Michael Walcoff, associate deputy undersecretary for field operations who sits on two of the review boards, and his wife, Kimberly, a VA director, received a package of bonuses totaling $42,000.

    "This is a scandal in the making," said Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University who specializes in government reform. He said the VA bonuses pointed to possible "featherbedding" and other favoritism.

    Light said given the current problems in veterans care, the department would be best served if Nicholson restricted most performance bonuses for at least a year except in cases of clear improvement.

    "This is not the time for largesse for the Department of Veterans Affairs," Light said. "They must not make a link between retention and employees, but employees and performance as an incentive to solve these very serious problems."

    Following reports this month by the AP of the $3.8 million in bonuses, groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have called on Nicholson to explain why officials involved in budget foul-ups would be rewarded.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Bang A Mexican, a Nicaraguan, a Panamanian a Guatamalan, the whole smorgasboard.

    ReplyDelete
  105. imo we are currently winning the war in Iraq against al queda but losing the war at home against the internationalists.

    the latter is the more subtle game. bush doesn't seem to equate losing to internationalists to losing to the musselmen. but it is.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Internationalists?

    Who are they?
    Supporters of the UN, Free Trade and Open Borders, for US?

    If that's the case, that'd be Mr Bush. He is losing to himself?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Mat,
    It's the Ultra Old Demographic that reeeally pushes my Buttons!

    ReplyDelete
  108. That, and Professional Nitrous hoarders.

    ReplyDelete
  109. My Jooish Cardiologist went to see the Dali Lama, fwiw.
    I mocked,
    my son defended,
    the anti-semitism is petering out over the ages.
    (son also defended AIKON!!!)
    SICK.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Basicly, the old she asked for it defense.
    Perhaps so, still woulda felt real good to double tap him in the act.

    ReplyDelete
  111. To give just one example:

    According to German intelligence estimates, Saddam might have had a nuclear weapon by now.

    Now, why did a politically hemorraging, leftist German government not find this compelling?

    Because they weren't the ones who would have had to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete