See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Joe Klein: Dragged, Kicking And Screaming (to the reality of victory in Iraq)
Source:
Men's News daily
URL Source: http://outsidethewire.mensnewsdaily ... dragged-kicking-and-screaming/
Published: Nov 15, 2007
Author: Men's News daily
Post Date: 2007-11-15 11:02:09 by longnose gar
Keywords: Blame america leftists and pau
Views: 591
Comments: 43
The partisan liberal hacks in the mainstream media are having a hard time with the reality that now is Iraq. Al Qaeda's ass has been kicked out of Baghdad altogether, businesses are up and running by the hundreds, violence is at an almost all-time low, yet those who've put all their chips in the "illegal, immoral, civil war" pile, are watching their bet go down the tubes. Their credibility (as questionable as it was) is on the line, and admitting they were wrong is the last place they want to go. Here is a perfect example of the "death by a thousand cuts"…. November 13, 2007 Are We Winning in Iraq? Posted by Joe Klein, Time Magazine We've seeing a fair amount of triumphalism from the usual suspects on the right about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Premature, I think–in part because of the limits of the bottom-up strategy. We may just be in the midst of a vast Iraqi exhale before the next phase of the civil war. That phase could include renewed fighting between the newly armed Sunnis (70,000 strong!) and the sketchy Iraqi Security Forces…or a full-scale armed struggle for power between the dominant Shi'ites families–the Sadrs and Hakims–in the south. It is important to remember that most of Baghdad remains, quietly, in the control of Muqtada al-Sadr. If and when US forces start pulling out of town, we will leave the capital in Sadr's control–a fact that remains intolerable for many Shi'ites and Sunnis. Furthermore, the Maliki government remains corrupt and dysfunctional. The Iraqi constitution, imposed by the US, remains untenable. The quagmire is as mired as ever…I still haven't heard anyone describe a plausible endgame. And yet: The reduction of violence is real. The defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq–sneezed at by some antiwar commentators–is nothing to sneeze at. The bottom-up efforts to reconcile Sunnis and Shi'ites across the scarred Anbar/Karbala provincial border, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, quite possibly reflect an Iraqi exhaustion with violence that has to be taken seriously as well. There is no question that the performance of the US military has improved markedly under the smarter, more flexible and creative leadership provided this year by General Petraeus. And the withdrawal of U.S. troops is beginning. The refusal of the antiwar movement–or some sections of it–to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility. That must of been hard to write. The far-left has yet to acknowledge the realities on the ground in Iraq, and people like Joe Klein are going to be soon feeling the sting of the arrows being shot into their backs. Al Qaeda are not the only ones losing the war. Liberals are as well, and when it comes to reluctant columns like this by Joe Klein, he'd better start making reservations for his place under the bus. It's going to get crowded under there….
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
(Edited)
Don't try to inject any reality into mudfish's world of make-believe. Telling somebody like him that his fantasies about Al Quaeda "the war on terror" and "Islamofascists" are delusions is like telling a little kid that the dolls in her playhouse aren't real people.
Is this like the almost weekly "We are winning" articles Happy fun ball had been posting for the past 4 years? If I had a dime for every reich wing announcement of victory in Iraq I would be a rich man. My favorite was the National Review cover story in 2004 "We Are winning". LOL. And in 3 months when the KIA rate is back up to 2.8 per day and nothing has changed- the reich wing blog world will not remember absurd posts like this one. Indeed- they won't even remember the "surge". (But I will):)
It will be interesting to see how the reich wing reacts when Hillary's turn at bat comes up and she runs these idiotic wars. I love the self imposed delusion that the reich wing clings to about "liberals" oppossing this war. When the only thing that defines your "right wing-ness" is support for war, all war- all the time- I guess you need to manufacture nebulous "liberal" straw men who opposse it.
I love the self imposed delusion that the reich wing clings to about "liberals" oppossing this war. When the only thing that defines your "right wing-ness" is support for war, all war- all the time- I guess you need to manufacture nebulous "liberal" straw men who opposse it. Hillary will give the neocons all the wars that they want. I think that the Weekly Standard recently ran an article praising her for her chest thumping about Iran. So when people like mudfish complain about "liberals" and "Democrats," it's just about rooting for their home team. The Fox News crowd "hates" Hillary not for any of her policies (which are just like theirs most of the time), but because she has a "D" rather than an "R" next to her name. That's even more obvious than before since she'll probably be against another New York liberal, Giuliani.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
He *is* happy fun ball. He thinks it's the duty of the US to make things 'better' in Iraq.
must HAVE been, must HAVE been
Or, if Hillary runs against Ron Paul in the general election, mudfish and the Fox News boys will decide that she's not so bad after all. Especially if she keeps promising to bomb Iran over their dreaded nuclear program. Billy Kristol's rag has already said as much.
I don't expect any complete pull out of Iraq for quite a while. Vigilance is needed, and is always a part of victory.
Don't you mean a continued occupation, so that we can continue to control the oil?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
How long did we "control the oil" in Germany and Japan after that war ended?
I'd love to hear Limbaugh or Hannity answer this question: If the election was between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Hillary clinton, which would you vote for? DOH!!!
Register to vote for Ron Paul NOW.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Japan attacked us. Germany declared war on us. We had a right to occupy them under international law. This time, we behaved towards Iraq the way Hitler behaved towards Poland and several other countries. Was Hitler's occupation of Poland legal?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's not a choice I'll have to make or would want to make. Ron Paul's stated foreign policy is absolutely unacceptable. It's also ridiculous to think he could just dismantle the IRS and replace it with nothing. Same for the CIA.
Was Poland in violation of a UN resolution? Bush was authorized to use force against Iraq by over 2/3 of the house and Senate
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I guess a prerequisite to being a Paultard is displaying utter absurdity.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
You still claim that Iraq was materially noncompliant with Resolution 1441? Would you care to explain how? Only idiots still believe Iraq had WMD's. Their report to the U.N. under 1441 turns out to have been substantially accurate. If violation of U.N. resolutions justifies military action even in the absence of explicit Security Council authorization, I wonder how many Security Council resolutions Israel is now in violation of.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
As for the congressional authorization of the use of force against Iraq, if you bother to look at the authorization, you will see that it was a conditional authorization, conditioned upon Bush reporting certain findings to Congress. Instead of making those findings, Bush simply repeated some "whereas" clauses in the congressional resolution, clauses that did not have the legal force of findings. And we now know both that those "findings" were in fact false, and that Bush probably knew and in any case should have known at the time that they were false. John Dean discusses this in Worse Than Watergate.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Two separate bipartisan Congressional investigations have determined that Bush did not lie or manipulate intelligence. Congress was supplied with the same evidence in an NIE, which included any contrary opinions, and voted overwhelmingly for the war.
When you say Bi-Partisan, you mean independent of the government right? I'd like someone else's opinion and not the opinions of the people who actually voted for us to go to war in the first place. Oh, and while you're here, why don't you explain to me how it is that after 9-11 nobody in our government and or military was brought up on charges for willful dereliction of duty for not scrambling interceptors to take out the missing planes that crashed into the Pentalawn, the Trade Towers, and that field in Pennsylvania? You're truly sad for not having the ability to think for yourself. You're one of those pathetic lemming types who just loves the government that pays your bills for you.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
seriously!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Why don't you educate yourself on the matter and get back to me. http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
Iraq had not demonstrated the destruction of known WMD materials.
I think the burden of proof is on the person who wants to start a war, not on the party who is being asked to prove a negative.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
UN 1441 made it clear that the burden of proof was on Iraq to demonstrate disarmament by doing things like turning over the WMD production materials we knew they had. They simply did not meet their obligations, and met with the "serious consequences" that were promised. We had dilly dallied about this for 12 years, and in a post 911 environment, we couldn't take any more chances.
I have no idea what you mean by "WMD production materials". They produced information about their (lack of) WMD's which turned out to be accurate. I thought myself they were lying at the time. Some people are willing to admit it when they're wrong.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Items like uranium-enrichment centrifuges
Let's assume you're correct and that Iraq was obliged under the resolution to report something about centrifuges that it did not report. You call that a sufficient reason for war? Have you ever heard of the atmospheric testing our government conducts to determine whether nuclear activity is going on? If it wasn't, those tests would be negative. And our leaders would know.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Funny, you didn't answer my question as to why officials, and military personnel alike were never disciplined for their inaction on 9-11. Yet another so called mythbuster touting out and out bullshit as truth. Funny how you seem to pull out the kook stuff rather than answer a legitimate question about the abject failures to defend our nation on 9-11. You are fricking hilarious.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Do you really expect an honest answer from flounder foxman?
"Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William S Burroughs
Geniuses like you seem to ignorant of the fact that the "war on terror" was designed to destroy America as well as Arab culture. Or maybe you do know it and secretly revel in the destruction of both peoples.
Read New History Is your nose long because you're constantly fibbing for the GOP?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Because there was no "inaction." Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).
Bullshit. Everyone sat there with their thumbs up their collective asses while captain jackass read the book about the pet goat. Your dishonesty is such a fucking joke. I pray that someday your idiot children will leave you a dried out old husk at the retirement home to die alone.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ).
Keep shilling you fraud. Maybe your kids will dope you up with Morphine.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
You just can't accept that the facts don't connect with your tinfoil paranoid schizophrenia delusions.
Great- the troops should be home any day now and the "Enduring bases" closed
#4. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#3)
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
#6. To: Burkeman1 (#5)
It will be interesting to see how the reich wing reacts when Hillary's turn at bat comes up and she runs these idiotic wars.
#7. To: Burkeman1 (#5)
#8. To: Burkeman1 (#4)
Is this like the almost weekly "We are winning" articles Happy fun ball had been posting for the past 4 years?
#9. To: longnose gar (#0)
That must of been hard to write.
#10. To: ghostdogtxn (#7)
Indeed. Will Happytobebushballed still post "we are winning" when Hillary is in charge? I daresay no. I suspect that it will be "Hillary is dropping the ball" for a while, and then he'll be "opposed to the Democrats' war".
#11. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
Great- the troops should be home any day now and the "Enduring bases" closed.
#12. To: longnose gar (#11)
Vigilance is needed, and is always a part of victory.
#13. To: aristeides (#12)
#14. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#10)
Or, if Hillary runs against Ron Paul in the general election, mudfish and the Fox News boys will decide that she's not so bad after all.
#15. To: longnose gar (#13)
#16. To: longnose gar (#13)
#17. To: ghostdogtxn (#15)
#18. To: aristeides (#16)
#19. To: longnose gar (#17)
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#19)
You're a war-loving, death worshipping statist.
#21. To: longnose gar (#20)
#22. To: longnose gar (#18)
#23. To: longnose gar (#18)
#24. To: aristeides (#23)
#25. To: longnose gar (#24)
#26. To: aristeides (#22)
If violation of U.N. resolutions justifies military action even in the absence of explicit Security Council authorization, I wonder how many Security Council resolutions Israel is now in violation of.
#27. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#25)
Oh, and while you're here, why don't you explain to me how it is that after 9-11 nobody in our government and or military was brought up on charges for willful dereliction of duty for not scrambling interceptors to take out the missing planes that crashed into the Pentalawn, the Trade Towers, and that field in Pennsylvania?
#28. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#25)
#29. To: aristeides (#22)
#30. To: longnose gar (#29)
#31. To: aristeides (#30)
#32. To: longnose gar (#31)
UN 1441 made it clear that the burden of proof was on Iraq to demonstrate disarmament by doing things like turning over the WMD production materials we knew they had.
#33. To: aristeides (#32)
I have no idea what you mean by "WMD production materials"
#34. To: longnose gar (#33)
#35. To: longnose gar, *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* (#28)
#36. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#35)
(Edited)
#37. To: longnose gar (#0)
Al Qaeda are not the only ones losing the war. Liberals are as well..
"Abe Foxman, my good friend and partner." - John Negroponte
#38. To: longnose gar (#31)
#39. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#35)
Funny, you didn't answer my question as to why officials, and military personnel alike were never disciplined for their inaction on 9-11.
#40. To: longnose gar (#39)
#41. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#40)
#42. To: longnose gar (#41)
#43. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#42)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest