“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."

Monday, July 30, 2007

Without A CAIR - Guestpost by Harrison

An EB guestpost by Harrison at the Possum Bistro!

Thanks for helping - here's a lawsuit!

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper gets interviewed and defends his organisation's support for a bill that will allow CAIR to sue normal citizens ('John Does') for informing authorities or local law enforcement agencies of suspicious behaviour exhibited by any other person; to me, this is simply a blatant display of obstructionism of active citizens and their efforts to help the local law enforcement agencies to apprehend potentially dangerous members of the community. At worst, this is complicit behaviour by CAIR that is, unsurprisingly, typical of its protocol that condones the funding and institutional support of terrorist groups such as Hamas: in other words, a clear, unambiguous act of treason.

Hooper doesn't truly answer the question that is put forth to him, which concerns the shaky justification behind the decision to support such an audacious, self-serving move as to protect the rights of potential enemies of the state. As Tucker sums it up at the end of the clip, the position taken up by CAIR and the Democrats is utterly "indefensible": who truly determines whether something is done in "good faith"? Note that Hooper, when confronted with this pointed query by Tucker, jumps at the opportunity to invoke the "good faith" provision in order to obfuscate the unchanging fact that Tucker irrepressibly clings on to - that the lawsuit will be enacted before the obscure "good faith" detecting device that CAIR has managed to procure is applied to the accused.

Thus, the precedent is that of prosecuting normal citizens on the inaccurate, self-serving basis established by those at CAIR who undoubtedly already possess that raging strain of hypocrisy and anti-anti-Muslim prejudice. You know the Pillars of the Progressive: Muslims can insult other religions and their gods in cartoons, run anti-Semitic articles and basically spew venomous invective calling for the heads of their enemies - but when that type of behaviour is done unto them, it's 'racism', 'xenophobia' and 'anti-Islam'; cultural relativism which rationalises and legitimises suicide bombings, stoning and honour killings as 'natural', but condemns the incarceration of blood-thirsty terrorists as 'barbaric'; the Fairness Doctrine according fundamentalist and ideologically-charged commentaries that rant about 'Western imperialism' and 'oppression of Islam' equal value with rational analysis, while dismissing the need to respond to contradictions in their tirades by accusing critics of 'anti-Muslim bigotry' and the 'Western impulse to cow the inferior peoples'.

It doesn't take a large degree of agitation to expose the Pillars, because the average indoctrinated dhimmi at CAIR recites them like a knee-jerk response to any sign that may hint that you're not totally on their side with the jihadists, terrorists and apologists: Hooper displays this more than once in the clip, first referring rather ridiculously to the KKK, then snidely suggesting that the day when an entirely non-Muslim flight is possible isn't here yet, insinuating rather disrespectfully that Tucker is prejudiced against Muslims. This verbal insult being delivered in a manner so direct and without any prior knowledge of Tucker's own sensibilities or sentiments about the issue provides a clear carbon copy of every single investigation of any John Doe who is sued by CAIR: the assumption of anti-Muslim bias that would 'inevitably' lead to the prank call being made by John Doe is established as a 'truth' even before John Doe himself/herself receives the news that he or she has just been sued.

That is persecution sanctioned by CAIR and those Democrats who support the amendment, directed towards normal citizens who may or may not have been motivated by an inherent anti-Muslim bias, but certainly there is the possibility of their act of reporting being motivated by the observation of 'suspicious behaviour'. Yet on the surface Hooper masks it simply as an act of prosecution, though it is justified neither on a basis of evidence nor a past record of criminal behaviour/racial discrimination, but on an inherent prejudice that those who called in must be, without doubt, full of hatred towards Muslims. To judge and punish someone based on their race, religion or beliefs (supposed or otherwise) is persecution - it is no longer a clean, justifiable act of prosecution in the name of the law. In case CAIR needs to be reminded of the natural conclusion should persecution be allowed to manifest to its most extreme degree, look no further than the Holocaust. But I bet they denied that ever happened.

In short, Hooper is advocating the legalisation of prosecuting people not on grounds of 'suspicious behaviour', but by slapping such behaviour with the label of guilt sans evidence. Tucker is right in saying that this would surely disincentivise ordinary citizens from informing airport security about questionable behaviour, lest they find a lawsuit being issued against them by CAIR, which is more than adequately funded since it is seen as the legitimising ideological mouthpiece - a tool of the Islamists and jihadists with which to infiltrate our institutions and further drive the dichotomy between the believers and the kuffar in preparation for Judgement Day. However, I believe that a select few citizens will nevertheless risk the lawsuit and still do their duty to protect each other from potential danger and death - if there are lawyers who are willing to defend these brave souls in court, expose the persecutory, bigoted and irredeemably racist attitude of CAIR, rip the veneer and show the rest their intentions and the actions that point towards such loyalties which run counter to that of our nation - then perhaps there is hope for us all. The more citizens that stand up and refuse to be blackmailed and coerced by CAIR and the Democrats, the harder it will be for the amendment to be passed; if passed, the harder it will be for CAIR to justify its insidious acts of unmasked treason.

Hooper is also obviously attempting to invidiously widen the chasm between the citizen and the constitutional state. The American people opted for a republic rather than a democracy, and for good reason: the minimal state was desired, with a select body of personnel - collectively called the government - empowered by the citizenry with just enough authority, legitimacy and oversight to handle affairs of the state. There is a reason why the American people did not choose to bestow in the hands of government the monopoly of force and power to establish law and order, and that decision was manifested in the Second Amendment. Each citizen has individual sovereignty to preserve the sanctity and security of private life should various strata of law enforcement fail to intervene at the most dire of circumstances - and to survive as a society, each citizen must be willing to aid others in preserving that collective sanctity, minimising intrusions onto peace, willing to sacrifice blood and tears to protect what society holds dear - be it values, beliefs or customs.

The citizen has a part to play in the continuing provision of security of the state and its inhabitants, and Hooper is without doubt trying to deprive the government of its most useful ally in the weeding out of enemies of the state: the people who are the eyes and ears out there in the populace. What Hooper's intentions may be in instigating such a plot, I do not believe that they are for the betterment of the country. CAIR's support of the amendment reeks of betrayal and warranted suspicion - we, the people, should do well to sound this out to our peers and make out voices heard above the bigotry of the progressives.

Post-script: Flopping Aces posted on this today.


  1. Great post Whit.

    I believe CAIR is a tool of the Islamists, being used to soften us up for the coming direct assault on our Constitution and way of life. The Marxist-Democrats seem to be making common cause with the Islamists, believing that their godless religion can prevail over the Islamists once the Constitution has been thrown down.

    It is up to each American to secure his rights every day. If that means risking our comfort then so be it. There will be no comfort nor security once the Constitution is gone.

    So let CAIR sue. I will report suspicious behavior and defend myself in the absence of authorities. Both are my right. I would rather be penniless under the Constitution than a wealthy or dead dhimmi.

    Give me freedom or give me death.

  2. Thank you Lugh, I think it is timely post and well written. I wish that I had written it but it was penned by a young fella, Harrison, whose own blog carries the appetizing name, " the Possum Bistro."

  3. Harrison's writing at the "Bistro" is a joy to read. You can eat all the Possum you want and still want more.

    C.A.I.R., from early on, has enjoyed the support of the Republican Party of Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush, the RNC and President G.W.

    Here in Florida, where CAIR has an office in Tampa, Jeb actually had financial support withdrawn from two Republican State office candidates because they spoke out publicly against CAIR.

    The Bush family has a friend in CAIR!

  4. While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to selected members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish Army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent opening another war front in Iraq that would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure.

    The Turkish initiative reflects the temperament and personality of George W. Bush. Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, oblivious to the loss of his political base. Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, comprising one-fifth of the country's population.


    On July 25, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK Political Council, predicted "the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan." Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK's side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq.

    What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq? The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and now under secretary of defense for policy. A Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, he revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces helping the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years.

    Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds who had been betrayed so often by U.S. governments in years past.

    The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on a questionable venture against the Kurds.

  5. Ed, if true, Bush truly has a screw loose, possibly a purlin.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. "What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?"

    When only one of those friends is a NATO ally and serves the purpose of containment, the choice is pretty clear.

    But that means stepping all into Israel's shit. C'est la vie.

  8. Seems to me the better option here is the soft power we never seem to be able to wield.

    Could we not point out to the Kurds that they now have a Kurdistan thanks to us?

    Could we not inform the Kurdish .gov that the time to get the PKK disarmed and focused on building Kurdistan within its current - and permanent - borders is nigh?

    If there is one area in the mess of IRQ that we hold some considerable sway, all logic would point me to the Kurdish north.

    Why we go right to military ops makes no sense right now.

  9. Hard to explain how fracturing NATO, over Iraq, serves long term US security interests.

    There is only the one Mussulman majority country in NATO, we need to keep them on our side, through thick and thin, or US assurances of mutual defense would be worth less than they already are.

    With the US, goin' which ever way the wind blows.

  10. From Brookings, Hanlon and Pollack,"A War We Might Just Win". Worth a read.

  11. "Hard to explain how fracturing NATO, over Iraq, serves long term US security interests."


  12. Initial thoughts are they might be trying to set the stage for eventual defacto Kurdish independence by buying off the Turks and damaging the PKK (which is not "The Kurds"). Chances of success would be small, however. It is a long-running conflict that goes to the heart of Turkey's national identity.

    Pissing off "the Kurds" is the least of our worries. "The Kurds" may gripe, but are not knee-deep in friends and need us more than we need them. If they really wanted a divorce it'd get a monkey off our back.

    Side question:

    Who is NATO "containing"?

  13. All it'd take, cutler, is a long term US committment to the Iraqi Stablization Mission, for the next decade or two.

    But with the Congress moving every 90 days or so to further limit that Mission ...

    More Republican Lawmakers Want Bush Administration to Limit Military Missions in Iraq

    the attractive alternative for Republican lawmakers who want to challenge Bush on the unpopular war without backtracking from their past assertions that it would be disastrous to set deadlines for troop withdrawals.

    "This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the `gotcha' politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion," said Rep. Phil English, R-Pa.

    English is among the more than 40 Republicans in the House and Senate who are sponsoring legislation intended to shift the mission of U.S. troops. Several other GOP lawmakers, facing tight elections next year and a strong anti-war sentiment in their districts, say they are considering this approach.

    "Settling Sunni-Shiite rivalries over who occupies what street in Baghdad is not in the vital interest of the United States," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who said she is considering her options. "And we should only have Americans in harms' way where there are U.S. interests at stake."
    If Bush cannot convince GOP lawmakers by September that he is on the right track, more Republicans are expected to demand change.

    But many of them, long on record as opposing an end date for combat, say it makes sense to focus on the mission instead. Yet this approach would amount to a de facto mandate for troop withdrawals because of the large number of forces assigned to combat missions.

    The goal, they say, is to end the U.S.-led daily patrols in the streets of Baghdad and restrict troops to fighting al-Qaida terrorists and training Iraq security forces.

    "If you do that you've greatly reduced the loss of life, which is what matters most," said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.

    The idea of forcing such a change gained prominence last December when the Iraq Study Group concluded Bush should do more to hand over the combat mission to Iraqi forces.

    The '08 election will drive the Iraq issue, as it always was going to. The Iraq Study Group's reccomendations are already on the advance. Talks with Iran, a limited security surge, Israeli accomodation with regards the PLO and talks with Syria over the Golan.

    The tactical advances in Baghdad, just a bit to little and to late to effect a change in the over all trend line.
    Just a bump, not a break out.

    Check out this alexa graph, click on the 3 year view, it corresponds with support for the Iraq Adventure, almost perfectly.

    A few ticks and bumps, but still headed to the basement.

  14. The Russians. Which is why NATO is advancing into Eastern Europe,
    Poland and the Czech Republic.

    As Russia removes itself from the Conventional Forces treaty and participates in web and energy sector assualts on Georgian and other past Soviet proxy states

  15. Who is NATO "containing"?

    Mon Jul 30, 09:58:00 AM EDT

    In regard to this issue specifically, Turkey is containing the Greater Kurdistan movement, which we don't want.

    It's not a matter of buying off the Turks.

  16. Good article Cutler. What if we are nearing success, right when we are getting ready to pull out?

  17. I wish I could get a good handle on what is happening in Iraq. One article says one thing, another article says something else.

  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

  19. How do we define "winning" this week?

    If the definition remains the one at the White House web site:

    The way out of Iraq is to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, to be an ally in the war on terror and also an example to the region that democracy can succeed. So that is the way out.

    then we are no closer to success, despite the progress made in stopping Sunni attacks upon US troops in Anbar and Sadr City remaining a "no go zone".

    Remember what you said last January, or there abouts, rufus, the "surge" would give US an appearance of success, which we would have to exploit, politically.

    But that the long term aspects of success, success that is dependent upon "democracy and reconciliation" are no closer now then they were then.
    At best, measured success is still a decade away. Measurements in 45 day increments will not be indicitive, pro or con, of what will become a long term trend, one way or the other.

    There is no patience left, the '08 election cycle beckons after to many years of following the wrong course.
    Short term tactical military success will not alter the strategic challenges facing US, challenges we steadfastly refuse to address.

    The US military can bring stability to where ever they are, in Iraq, but not to where they are not.

    Or so related General Lynch, last week.

  20. Who is NATO "containing"?

    The honest answer would be Turkey. And I prefer that this job be given back to the Russians. They're much better at it. Iraq/Kurdistan is a precursor to the greater dissolution of the Jihadi/Arab/Turkic Empire(s). Greater Iran and Greater Syria should be next on the chopping block. There's absolutely no reason as to why these mini empires should continue to exist as the political entities that they are today.

  21. As this GOP Congressperson from NM makes perfectly clear, Mr Bush and his Team have failed to carry their message to the people.

    "Settling Sunni-Shiite rivalries over who occupies what street in Baghdad is not in the vital interest of the United States," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who said she is considering her options. "And we should only have Americans in harms' way where there are U.S. interests at stake."

    It's just not very important, to the majority of US, who controls the the back streets of Baghdad.

    This was amply demonstrated by the four years of US occupation of Baghdad, during which the US did not secure Route Irish, the road from the airport to the Green Zone, let alone the balance of the city.

    The idea that what happens in Baghdad is a concern to US national security, not convincingly explained to the US public by the Decider in Chief or his staff.

    Same old story,
    same old song and dance.

  22. If the internal security of Baghdad really were a US Security concern, we'd have secured the city in 2004, not waited until 2007 to start.

    By the US Commanders own words, aQ had been allowed sanctuary in US occuppied Baghdad, for years.

    If it did not matter to the US National Security and the US military in 2005 and 2006, when we were moving to "They Stand up, we stand down", that aQ had Iraqi sanctuaries, why is it primary now?
    Now that the Iraqi Government can stand up and is going after the insurgents, the US moves to protect and shelter those very same insurgents.

    The US supplies ammo to the Insurgents, while the Iraqi Ambassador says the US is sloooow to fulfill its' promises of logistical support and heavier weapons.
    The need for the Iraqi to have those weapons, to be successful was described in this:

    After Action Report—General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret)
    VISIT IRAQ AND KUWAIT 9-16 March 2007

    A sufficient but not necessary condition of success is adequate resources to build an Iraqi Army, National Police, local police, and Border Patrol. We are still in the wrong ball park.
    The Iraqis need to capacity to jail 150,000 criminals and terrorists.
    They must have an air force with 150 US helicopters. (The US Armed Forces have 100+ medevac helicopters and 700 lift or attack aircraft in-country.)
    They need 5000 light armored vehicles for their ten divisions.
    They need enough precision, radar-assisted counter-battery artillery to suppress the constant mortar and rocket attacks on civilian and military targets.
    They should have 24 C130’s---and perhaps three squadrons of light ground attack aircraft.
    I mention these numbers not to be precise—but to give an order of magnitude estimation that refutes our current anemic effort. The ISF have taken horrendous casualties. We must give them the leverage to replace us as our combat formations withdraw in the coming 36 months.

  23. "As this GOP Congressperson from NM makes perfectly clear, Mr Bush and his Team have failed to carry their message to the people."

    They carried their message to the people. The people lost confidence in their message.

    Need a new message.

    But there isn't one.

  24. They call it repackaging, trish.

    It is done all the time, same old product, new and improved box.

    But the Bush Team relies upon a mail list marketing specialist, not a propagandist, to deliver its' message. A clear mistake, using a data base manager to formulate the message when an idea man was required.

    What the US public wants is a resembelance of success and withdrawal. Success is self-defining and achievable, just not appreciated.

    The Iraqi have been provided all the tools of civil society, they can find their own way forward, with a long-term US presence, but on a much smaller scale. If there is some self-segregation of the Iraqi population, a de facto partition under a weak Federal regime, that would suit the majority of US.

    Mr Biden's been right.

  25. Instead of "Pumping UP!" aQIraq, playing them for a 12 foot tall boogy man, they should be dismissed, of not worthy of concern.
    The suicide bombings, not of military signifigance.
    Disscount their politcal impact and declare victory. Hand in hand with Maliki and whomever wants in.

    Predeclare the success of the "surge", force the Iraqi to hold Baghdad, based on a schedule of withdrawals, starting in March '08.
    Which is going to happen anyway.

    But spin what will occur as success, foretold.

    Have faith that by Spring they'd be ready as they'd ever be.

  26. "Instead of "Pumping UP!" aQIraq, playing them for a 12 foot tall boogy man, they should be dismissed, of not worthy of concern."

    Sweet. If we only could get Zawahiri to S.T.F.U.

  27. Each day the President and his talking heads tell US of the immediate and growing aQ threat, of nukes and anthrax. A dirty bomb perhaps.

    How that if the US were to depart Iraq, the 350,000 men of the Iraqi Security Forces, with four years under US tutelage, will dissolve under the car bomb assualt.

    But then US Commanders tell the tale of protecting the Insurgents of Anbar from arrest by the Iraqi Army.

    As to Doc Z, let him rant, and shrug it off, the ravings of old man mountain.

    There again, a not ready for prime time player, set into the center ring. But really just a jester, like a splinter left to fester.
    We always have the option, to amputate that mussulman finger, if it were a real security concern.

  28. westhawk has a new thread, concerning that NYTimes article:

    Messrs. O’Hanlon and Pollack now call Iraq “a war we just might win.” That can only be true if the U.S. adopts a strategy that converts its long tally of successes at the local level into geo-strategic influence that enhances America’s interests. Such a strategy is available should anyone care to think it through. The Bush administration has never thought of strategy in these terms. Nor have the 2008 presidential candidates.

    Iraq will always be with us. How will the U.S. take advantage of what it has thus far accomplished there?

    makes sense to me.

  29. From the OHannon/Pollack NyTimes article:
    "Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control."

    Police forces must be local especially in a place such as Iraq.

  30. The BBC seems to be "pouring on" the Iraq is a humanitarian disaster theme. It is drenched in horror stories. Something tells me that this is all leading back to the root cause which they will most certainly identify as the United States. Stay tuned.

  31. I cannot stand listening to the BBC anymore. It was not always so.

  32. John Burns interview on Hewitt.

  33. Says Pelosi Pullout would be disasterous.

  34. Anymore news on Maliki relationship w/Petraeus?

  35. "Police forces must be local especially in a place such as Iraq. "
    Just what Garner said all along, but Jackasssonian is deaf to mere facts.

  36. ". Such a strategy is available should anyone care to think it through. "
    Do tell, 'Rat, or anyone:
    Westhawk did not elaborate for my feeble mind.

  37. "Ignorant and stupid people dislike Jews as a convenient scapegoat. The same people who think shaking hands with westerners causes a man's penis to drop off"
    I WONDERED why that happened!
    ...wish Whiskey 199 had warned us that the Westerner's does too.

  38. Did BBC mention that Iraq might have been described as a 'humanitarian disaster' under Saddam?

    O surely they are right, the BBC, in saying that all these killings are the fault of someone other than the killers.

    BBC keeps me glued to 'Coast to Coast' with George Noory, for my nightly connection with reality.

  39. Misdirected, but indefatigueable.

  40. Just don't smoke anything, before you look at This

  41. Burns describes the Classic No-Win situation:

    (of course we could always follow General Garner's advice and divide the country.) kid Alky GWB never learned the lesson of cutting your losses.
    Stay the Course!

  42. It's these Secret Deals the govmint is always doing that pisses me off.

  43. One in ten Americans have been abducted, so says Lear, of LearJet fame.

    Where's Teresita Catherine Larsen?

  44. Good Grief, no, Mat, not all them, out to the farm!:(

  45. New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner John Burns on Iraq, Iran and how the surge is working.
    (and the difficult decisions yet to be made)
    An honorable and humble professional.
    And then there is the perenial black and white view:

    "dla said...
    Red River said...
    Iraq is the Wahhabist's Guadalcanal.

    Profound. And I think you are right. I hope you are right.

  46. (of course we could always follow General Garner's advice and divide the country.)

    - doug

    For which you have to have borders, some kind of effing political agreement, and willing participants among all parties in order to do it.

    Why don't WE just divide it up?

    Good grief, why didn't WE think of that?

  47. Doug,

    The U.S. strategy has been the subject of heated discussion between Maliki and Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, both sides acknowledged Saturday.

    But Petraeus dismissed as "ludicrous" a report that Maliki felt he could no longer work with the general.

    "This is really, really hard stuff, and occasionally people agree to disagree," he said.

    With the country's largest Sunni bloc suspending participation in his Cabinet, Maliki's coalition needs the support of its Shiite conservative members, who are angry over U.S. raids and airstrikes targeting Shiite militants in areas such as Baghdad's Sadr City and the southern city of Karbala.

    "Petraeus is not answerable before the Iraqi people. Maliki is," said Haider Abadi, another of the prime minister's aides. "There is mounting pressure on Maliki because of these casualties."

    Petraeus acknowledged the government's concerns about working with Sunni tribes.

    "Obviously there is a concern, particularly in the areas where Al Qaeda had sanctuaries, that some of them may have had ties with them before," he said. "But at the end of the day, situations like this historically have been resolved by the local citizens helping with local security."

    The goal, he said, is to get the tribal volunteers jobs in the Iraqi security forces. But getting them screened and trained can take months.

    In the meantime, "we applaud when they turn their guns against Al Qaeda," Petraeus said.

  48. What's your solution, Trish?
    Burns figures maybe a million will die in the coming Civil War when this country decides it isn't worth the cost.

  49. But we do not appauld when the Iraqi Army unit raid a school and arrests the Insurgents encamped there. That is viewed with concern and creates doubts as to the Iraqis' loyalty.
    Not to their Government, but to US. Since US policy and Goals are at cross purposes to the Iraqi goals.

    The US has had 51 months to screen and train the existing 350,000 men of the Iraqi security forces.

    The US keeps them stood down in the fight against the Insrgents, and says another 2 years of training, minimum, are still required, before those Iraqi Forces can hold what the US has cleared.

    Spinning the realities of ineptitiude and incompetence in the US military, that is what is evidenced by the lack of capable Iraqi.

  50. Well Bob,.. Larsen, always the romantic, he's keeping Maggie company. Ms T said something about a trip she be taking. As though terrorizing the natives wasn't enough. Catherine, I don't remember her 'round these here woods much. I always assumed the possums got her.

  51. What's Westhawk's obvious solution, 'Rat?
    I'm missing some mental weaponry after that handshake.
    (the other head)

  52. Catherine used Ms T as an excuse to shuffle off us lowlifes.
    In search of a more refined Bar, I guess.

  53. Anyone watch this trailer yet?

  54. He seems to favor the de facto partition, which is what is coming.

    How to keep it from degenerating into a full out Civil War, without US interceding, militarily. Which is where we are now. Protecting the Insurgents from a trained and stood up Iraqi Army, in Anbar.

    That is the newest Mission for US troops. Keeping the 1920 Brigades armed and active, in the face of well trained and motivated Iraqi Government Forces.

  55. But what did you do, doug, to piss tanya, the beach girl, off

  56. "What's your solution, Trish?"

    Ron Paul.

  57. Trish,
    Please describe how your Librarian Superman will extricate us from Iraq.

  58. A hearty handshake, smile of sincerity, and expression of best wishes, long overdue.

    How else does one do it?

  59. Cathline was the one I liked the best, Mat. We were having a deep deep discussion of the merits and demerits of homoxesuality, and the possible penalties therefore, and I suggested, what the hell, let us just have a really good rut, like the noble elk, and let it all fall out.

    She seemed to agree with this outlook, saying it was Gaiian, and erotic at the same time, and male dominated, but that was the last I heard of her, being abducted, is my only quess.

  60. "He seems to favor the de facto partition, which is what is coming."
    Trish says that's impossible:
    Like every other solution anyone else comes up with.
    Must suck to never see an opportunity anywhere!

  61. That's real helpful, Trish!
    I'd say the partition idea is more reasonable, but that's just me.

  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

  63. Lugh,
    CAIR is a Stool of Islamists.
    ...but of course I am being redundant, and they need no stool softener to raise a stink in the coming direct assault on our way of life.

  64. Trish gave her other solution some time ago.

    Trish is now inspired to hop on the bank.

    The rest of you can stick with the dead dog floating downstream. Good luck with that.

  65. Ron Paul

    The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

    Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

    Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

    Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

    It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

    The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

    Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

    For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

    Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

    Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

    Round up the boys and head out, doug.

    That's the ticket.

  66. Catherine, Cathline, smart gal, however you spell it, any girl that can think clearly about a rut.

  67. DR, not much there to disagree with.

  68. Pluto, that bastard,he is the dude that got our Catherline.

  69. Now that the Iraqi masters and rulers have gone to the beach, a military coup might be helpful.

  70. The Texas congressman was cheered loudly when he called for an end t income tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS as well as when he called for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq saying “The policy of nonintervention is the policy of the founding fathers, Republicans would do well if they changed their position in this regard.”

  71. I think I may have groveled and begged her to stay. I have tried groveling to woman in the past but it is always counter-productive to your cause and expected outcome.

  72. Just abduct em' deuce, it is all they understand.

  73. Not really, duece.
    We'd get a Shia General that thought like that Iraqi officer that arrested the 1920 Insurgents, we'd get a fire breathing Shia, not a lap dog, like we've got now.

    That's the real problem, the is no internal Iraqi driver for reconciliation. Mr al-Hakim, the last of 7 or 8 brothers, all killed by Sunni Baathists or jihadi. His father dying of cancer, his Uncles all dead from Sunni bullets or poisons.

    That story is writ large across the Iraqi southland, as well as in Kurdistan, where the Iraqi flag has yet to fly.

    There is no military solution that will be acceptable to US, a coup would be the ultimate political disaster, for US.
    Not a rebirth but a burial.

  74. Bob,

    I just received this transmission:

    People of Earth,..
    Continue to monitor the KITSCH NICHE!

  75. Correct you are DR. I cannot think of any time in US history that is quite like this. We are in a war with something that we cannot even bring ourselves to say what it is. The ultimate poisoned fruit of the sixties.

  76. US actions are not dictated by the Iraqi.

    That US actions are so dictated, just another feather in the cap of Mr Bush and his management team.

    Ceding the inititive to others, they do that, a lot.

    As to Mr Paul, I mostly agree, but differ tacticly, not strategicly on how to withdraw.

  77. Explain to us DR. How would you do it and what would you leave behind, if anything?

  78. Iraq is no more. Stop trying to hold the hands of time. It will tear your arms off.

  79. "Iraq is no more. Stop trying to hold the hands of time. It will tear your arms off."

    very nice imagery

  80. Deuce,

    Someone needs to break the circuit-breaker.

  81. I'd bomb Iran, make a deal with the Kurds, and try to make the best sensible deal I could with the rest of them. One country of Iraq, rest in peace.

  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

  83. Bob,

    I think next time Hamas or Hezzbbollah fires a missile at Israel, a long range missile should go off at an Iranian oil refinery. Perhaps that will turn on some light bulbs in Tehran.

  84. I'd identify those Units that will withdraw in March 08 and assign to them the Iraqi that will relace them, now.

    I'd do that across the country, develop deadlines to accountability on a US occupation and rotation schedule of up to 36 months, from today.

    Increasing the training, one and one, hand in hand between the US Units and their replacements.

    As we leave, they stand up, we begin to leave in March, regardless, ready or not.

  85. Rat, if you were Commander in Chief, would you bomb Iran?

  86. dRat,

    It's not a question of training. It never was. You can remove the troops today or in 36 months, it is of no difference.

  87. I think it is true, that this talk of moving troops around etc, will not get us anywhere. Kurdistan is almost an independent courntry now, and I quess they should be. We can make a deal with them.

    The rest of it, let them fight and kill one another. It's who they are and it is their fate.

    Insane people like the Iranians have no right to nuclear weapons. It is like giving them to mad children. Kill them, if we have to. Or they will surely do it to us when they are able.

  88. There you have it, though, one way to leave victorious, funny, wasn't supposed to be.

    Fastest we could skeedaddle, about 18 months, unless it's a rout. It's not and shouldn't become one.
    It is a victory lap and fade to black.

    That added time, that 18 months, is part of the stabilization through the victory lap spin.

    Makes little difference in US casualties, that extra time and there'd be a successful end in sight.
    At least through the Election

  89. No, bob, I'd not bomb Iran.
    Not preemptively, today.

  90. "We can make a deal with them."

    The Kurds are taken, bob.

    And we don't want 'em.

  91. I find that odd Rat, and I don't understand it. These people are really insane. My wife, she worked with the insane(and not just me!)

    You put a totally insane theology, with youth, and weapons, and you have nuclear trouble.

    I simply do not understand your outlook.

    They are insane, Rat, they are crazy. Not like the Russians in there worst moments, nor the Chinese, who love their kids, more or less.

    Rat, these people are nuts.

  92. "That's not even funny, Rat. "
    You should be married to Jackasssonian:
    Both CERTAIN of everything you believe.
    ...course he's on the other side.
    (the wife could eat no lean?)

  93. "who love their kids"


  94. There are other ways to take down those mullahs, bob.
    Non-military ways that we have not even begun to implement.

    The Iranians, seem quite rational to me. Every move they make, well calculated as to the reaction and counter.

    They seem to see a couple moves further ahead than the Bush Team.

    The blowback to an adequate miltary strike against Iranian capabilities, greater than what would be gained, for US.

  95. I'd bankrupt 'em before I'd bomb 'em, bob.

  96. 'the kurds are taken bob'--well for good christ, just exactly by whom?--by 'whom' are the Kurds taken, Speak Woman!

    Perhaps, the Kurds are taken by
    Doug, or Bob, or Rufus?

  97. "They seem to see a couple moves further ahead than the Bush Team."
    Noteven the Mullahs deserve that left-handed compliment.

  98. The machines are whirling, Rat, right now.

    Which means a lot more than fee-nance.

  99. ...if we had all just stood still we'd be ahead of Team "w"

  100. "we would have pulled ahead of Team "w"
    ...receding in the rear view mirror.

  101. I don't think there are any other ways to take down the mullahs--a great gift to be hoped for--than by force. The rest of it is a pipe dream.

  102. Sure they are spinning, bob.

    They've already spun in Pakistan, which was funded in its' efforts by the Sauds. There already is a Wahabbist bomb. 48 of them it's reported.

    Even if the Iranians spin themselves a bomb, it's of little threat to the US. They have no adequate delivery system to threaten US, if we maintain a "vigilant eye".

    Bankrupt their financial system, let Israel retaliate, as mat says, if provoked in the Region.

    But to a war with Iran and its' fellow travelers, all around the World, there may not be a need.

  103. Doug , not even a horse. Old 'Cody' out there moldering on my wife's little place, in Ohio, has got more hat, cattle, and hide than George W. Bush.

    All we can pray for is 'he sees the light'--Congress be damned.

  104. They win, the Iranians. They will get all that stuff, the delivery systems. The hardware.

    We're fucked. It is a new world. The world of nightmare theological terrorisms, just what I wanted to be born into, lover of Frost, Whitman, Hemingway that I am.

  105. A sane man like
    Abraham Lincoln, is a loser, in the end.

  106. Spin that into a story for "Late Night" with that nut.

  107. Maybe you should pick up
    Leonard Cohen.

    "...and you know that he's half crazy,
    and that's why you want to be there."

  108. Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river
    You can hear the boats go by
    You can spend the night beside her
    And you know that she's half crazy
    But that's why you want to be there
    And she feeds you tea and oranges
    That come all the way from China
    And just when you mean to tell her
    That you have no love to give her
    Then she gets you on her wavelength
    And she lets the river answer
    That you've always been her lover
    And you want to travel with her
    And you want to travel blind
    And you know that she will trust you
    For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.

    And Jesus was a sailor
    When he walked upon the water
    And he spent a long time watching
    From his lonely wooden tower
    And when he knew for certain
    Only drowning men could see him
    He said "All men will be sailors then
    Until the sea shall free them"
    But he himself was broken
    Long before the sky would open
    Forsaken, almost human
    He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
    And you want to travel with him
    And you want to travel blind
    And you think maybe you'll trust him
    For he's touched your perfect body with his mind.

    Now Suzanne takes your hand
    And she leads you to the river
    She is wearing rags and feathers
    From Salvation Army counters
    And the sun pours down like honey
    On our lady of the harbour
    And she shows you where to look
    Among the garbage and the flowers
    There are heroes in the seaweed
    There are children in the morning
    They are leaning out for love
    And they will lean that way forever
    While Suzanne holds the mirror
    And you want to travel with her
    And you want to travel blind
    And you know that you can trust her
    For she's touched your perfect body with her mind.

    -- Leonard Cohen

  109. Doug, that good, I think I got it.

  110. Doug, that's good. I think I got it, now.

  111. BBC NEWS
    US plans huge Mid-East arms deal
    A high-level US delegation is travelling to the Middle East, after confirming plans for massive arms deals for allies in the region.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates are due to meet Arab ministers at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

    The main beneficiaries of the deals are Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    Ms Rice said they were needed to shore up allies against influences from Iran and Syria, and groups like Hezbollah.

    But Iran - whose nuclear programme and influence among Shia Muslim militant groups have long been sources of US concern - said the arms package would spread fear in the Middle East.

    'High priority'

    During a stop-over in Shannon, Ireland, Ms Rice told reporters: "There isn't a doubt, I think, that Iran constitutes the single most important, single-country challenge to... US interests in the Middle East and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."

    Israel - $30bn
    Egypt - $13bn
    Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and UAE - to share $20bn

    The trip is Ms Rice's first joint tour of the region with Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

    They will visit Egypt and Saudi Arabia together, and other countries separately.

    Mr Gates told reporters travelling with him that US officials wanted "to reassure all of the countries that the policies that (US President George W Bush) pursues in Iraq have had and will continue to have regional stability and security as a very high priority".

    But Iran said the military aid deal was America's attempt to destabilise the Middle East.

    Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said: "The United States has always had a special policy of spreading fear in the region and tarnishing existing good relations" between countries in the Middle East.

    Congressional opposition

    The $30bn aid to Israel over 10 years represents a 25% increase from present levels.

    The Jewish state said the package would allow it to maintain its military "qualitative edge" in the region.

    The sale of satellite-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, the first such sale to any Arab country, is thought to be part of the proposed $20bn arms deal with the kingdom and give other Gulf states - the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

    During their lobbying tour of the region, Ms Rice and Mr Gates are expected to ask Saudi King Abdullah to do more to support the Iraqi government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

    The US ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, has gone as far as accusing Saudi Arabia of undermining efforts to stabilise Iraq.

    The weapons deals need to be approved by Congress, and appear set to encounter opposition.

    Two Democratic congressmen, Anthony Weiner and Jerrold Nadler of New York, said at the weekend they would introduce legislation to block military aid to Saudi Arabia.

    Story from BBC NEWS:

    Published: 2007/07/31 04:07:01 GMT

  112. 'those that can't see the train wreck coming might as well be in the caboose'---quoted from an old American engineer.

  113. Geez, Whit. Bad enough we have to put up with Ash, now the BBC?!

    Israel - $30bn
    Egypt - $13bn
    Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and UAE - to share $20bn

    Better eat your wheaties.

  115. By the way Whit, what are you doing up so late?


    "Three Arab princesses were thrown off a packed British Airways flight after refusing to sit next to male passengers they didn't know.

    The dispute - in which the three princesses from the ultra-conservative Qatar royal family demanded segregated seating - left the London-bound plane delayed on a baking Italian runway for nearly three hours.

    Furious passengers whistled and clapped as the row intensified before the captain eventually ordered the women to be escorted off the plane."