Part 1 of 3
Here are some excerpts from a smart guy, and he happens to be an advisor to Barack Obama. (some of you know that)

For what it’s worth, I agree with most of this stuff, and I’ve said so many times before.
Also for what it’s worth, this is not the repug stance, (because they never INTENDED to leave Iraq – EVER) and I don’t believe that it is the longer held (or real) stance for Hillary Clinton either. If she was interested in getting out, it wouldn’t have taken her nearly 5 years (after voting for the authorization to do it to begin with) to pay lip service to such a claim.
***********

The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Washington Post
Sunday 30 March 2008

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033008Z.shtml

“Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until “victory.” The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for “staying the course” draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios.

President Bush’s and Sen. John McCain’s forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of “falling dominoes” that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier. “

“Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

TBC

Part 2 of 3

More Excerpts from Brzezinski piece at:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033008Z.shtml

“ It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq’s neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development - all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq’s neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them - albeit for different reasons - are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.

The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The “unipolar moment” that the Bush administration’s zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization - all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.”

TBC

Part 3 of 3 excerpts from

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033008Z.shtml

“Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations - on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington’s price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.”

• ***my own note here: The engagement of Iraq’s neighbors has ALWAYS been critical to overall effort, even from day one of the very stupid and rash decision to invade and occupy. However, the proof is over 6 years in the telling, that this administration of gangsters has instead preferred to antagonize those neighbors, and specifically Iran and Syria. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!
• BUT…was it really stupid, or the plan all along? I say from it was the plan all along, which was evident in whatever address the asshole made when he decided that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil. It’s been saber rattling and threats ever since, by every member of the gangster cabal. So no, they’ve never intended to leave Iraq. Rather, they’ve intended to OWN it, and Iran and the rest of the region as well.
• Dr. Brzezinski doesn’t address this, or make these ‘accusations’ but I am doing exactly that.***

“Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region’s religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle
East’s growing wealth.”

• ***another note of my own on the above. We’ve certainly known for at least 15 years, that the Israel/Palestine conflict is AT THE ROOT of the extremism, (and yes – the GLOBAL TERROR-) that the current gangsters have claimed as the greatest challenge of the 21st Century. So, it should go without saying, that the conflict must be settled, before there can be the kind of stability that the West claims they want, even though I’m convinced that they prefer the chaos that they’ve created, to serve their hidden agenda.
• Be that as it may, this conflict resolution WOULD be a magic bullet. The problem is that not only does the current US regime need to be exorcised, but there needs to be new political blood in Tel Aviv as well, if such an old conflict is ever to be resolved.********

“ We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war - to America’s historic detriment.”

I agree. Of the ‘options’ now available, -bad options and worse options- these are REQUIRED measures, to save the whole flippin’ world!

• “The crux of your argument is disingenuous and contradictory and is the kind of ad hominem attack that stagnates debate.”

OddlyAmerican,

This sentence (and many others in your essay) sounds as if it comes from a template. Matter of fact, it sounds exactly like something Maani would say. So does the time wasted on the Protestant and Catholic analogy. It was a simple statement made for the purposes of explaining that sectarian violence and civil strife DID NOT exist in Iraq any more than they do between various Christian sects within the United States, prior to the US occupation.

I wasn’t talking about Ireland, or the former Yugoslavia, or even the genocide of Rwanda, between the Hutu and the Tutsi. I was talking about the Iraq of the Saddam regime, which was bad to be sure, because HE oppressed the Shiite just as any dictator does when they are of the minority sect. (in this case, the Sunni).

What YOU fail to comprehend, (among a majority of other things) is that prior to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, it was the closest thing to a secular regime IN the Middle East, and that is in part, because of the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. So, while it’s true that the Kurds had their own semi-autonomous region in the North, and pretty much did their own thing when Saddam wasn’t harassing or otherwise terrorizing them, the rest of the Muslim population in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia AS WELL AS the small percentage of Jews and Christians, pretty much went about their business without conflict.

You’ve also failed to accept the fact that Iraq/Mesopotamia, is the BIRTHPLACE of civilization, and theirs was a highly sophisticated professional and social infrastructure. That INCLUDES their professionals in the OIL and natural gas industry, and their professional unions of workers involved in the same. It is only by their continued unified efforts, (which involve both Sunni and Shia) that they have so far prevented the legalization of the theft of their OIL by the US and other transnationals. So don’t tell me, (and you sure as hell shouldn’t suggest to any of THEM) that they are not capable of conducting their own affairs, when that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for decades, even when they were colonized under the British.

The occupation of Iraq by the US and/or any other forces represents a huge shit pot of violations of International Law. The laws that were created specifically to prevent what we are seeing there now. And to make it even worse, the US is even violating the Laws of OCCUPATION, on top of the fact that they illegally invaded the place. Those laws require the occupation forces to provide for the civilian population. They REQUIRE the occupiers maintain basic services and the needs of the population. Food, shelter, water, health care, infrastructure, and on and on.

Instead, the US has built its OWN infrastructure, (The GREEN ZONE) and torn up whatever WAS there, in order to gain access to the oil. Why else to you suppose that the ‘surge’ troops have spent all of their time constructing huge cement walls around entire neighborhoods, and locking the people in with US military manning of a single checkpoint in and out of these various enclaves? You call that PROTECTION of the civilian population?

Are we ‘protecting’ them with those bombs routinely dropped from the air, onto the civilian population?

So, for the purposes of clarification, I’ll say this again. The ILLEGAL US invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation state has been the source of ALL conflict in that same nation state. And it is from US, the US Military, that these innocent Iraqis need protection. How stupid does one have to be to expect the very ones who are raping and killing them, to also provide ‘protection’?

You can’t sell this bogus argument to any reasonable person, so you just shouldn’t try.

And no Maani, I’m not stagnating any debate.

Let him have it.

When George W. Bush called the fighting in Basra and other Iraqi cities a defining moment for the fledgling government that reminded me of Reagan famous quote on the Vietnam War when he said, “It was a noble cause”----what nonsense on both accounts!

Oh, by the way what happened to Grand Ayatollah al Sistani-----al Sadr’s boss???  Last I heard he had his heart on a Iraqi Islamic Republic.

Cyrena,

You are right to say that “the US is already resonsible for taking lives of over a million innocent Iraqis” but by pulling out of Iraq the US would further contribute to that death toll.

For you to say that you don’t buy into the ‘old hostitities’ argument and to use your assumption that there is an amicable relationship between Protestants and Catholics and then to compare it to the relationship between Shia and Sunni is misleading and outright wrong. It demonstrates the exact hubris and arrogance that got us in to this mess in the first place.

To debunk your assumption about Catholics and Protestants we need only turn to the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland (now who’s being arrogant and ‘United Statesian’), and as for your implcation that there is no bad blood between Shia and Sunni we need look no further than this web-site for Scott Ritter’s report titled ‘Calling out stupid America’. Although Mr Ritter and I come to a different conclusion the evidence is overwhelming.

Then to deny that the ‘surge’ achieved any positivity is simply wrong. It undoubtedly reduced violence and provided space for political dialogue. This is true.

As last week in Basra clearly demonstrated, leaving a power vacuum in Iraq would be far more dangerous for Iraqis than it would be for the US to stay.

The crux of your argument is disingenuous and contradictory and is the kind of ad hominem attack that stagnates debate. You assert that to leave Iraq would be to allow Iraqis to govern themselves and to counter that at all is the equivalent of unilateral arrogance. I disagree. Arrogance is at its highest when you advocate a course of action that is in direct contradiction to the facts on the ground.

Let me make it clear, I abhor this war and marched against it, but I will not support a policy that is driven by ideology and an unshakeable desire to truly cement Bush’s legacy as a failure at the expense of innocent Iraqis.

this ridiculous Focus on who the Two Corrupt Parties Nominate is Undemocratic. Saw Gravel is still Running, Ventura would consider, and oh yeah th espoiler of all time Ralphie Boy (like his Ideas- bu thasn’t done shit in 35 yrs, but move his mouth). It’s become painfully Obvious the Dem party is as Controlled by Corps as those who Stole the Republican Party. the infiltration also seems to have been about the same time. they Conned their way in to the Repubs with Religious mumbo Jumbo, While working their way in to the Dem base with lies about Humanitarian, environmental and Equality jargon. Consider ‘How much we’ve gained ove rth elast 35 yrs on those Fronts (Females$0.77 to Males$1.00- $0.02 cent raise from the ‘70’s,Reproductive rights,Gay rights, Racism, pollution to global Warming) heckva a Job!Why should we think this ‘Other side of the Coin’ would do anything to stop this agenda- Their Co Workers!

OddlyAmerican,

I agree with your general theme, except for the part about the occupation being the fuel of the fire.

I’m convinced that it absolutely IS the fuel.

I’m also absolutely convinced that the ‘surge’ did absolutely NOTHING beyond giving the Dick Bush Cabal that much more time to achieve their own agenda/ends..which has been to secure Iraqi oil for themselves and their transnational corporate partners in crime.

Where I suspect our fundamental difference in view lies, is that you are assessing the situation as a UnitedStatesian, (I don’t remember which blogger coined the term) and I am looking at it from the perspective of the Iraqis themselves.

What I see, (in the same way that you see American progressives as’ reluctant to admit’, or otherwise ‘naïve’) is the certain arrogance that comes with the mentality of the UnitedStatesian who believes that he/she is in a position to decide what’s best for another culture of people, of whom we know NEXT TO NOTHING!!

Actually, I DO know more, because I’ve taken the time to find out, by speaking directly with many of them, (and over the years) and also by reading from those who’ve been able to speak directly to them, SINCE the invasion and occupation. And, I’m talking about the average Iraqi. The average Sunni, and the average Shia. The same ones who lived together in the same shared culture/religion/tradition, etc long before the invasion, and did it with as much (if not more) success than varying ethnicities have EVER been able to accomplish in the US.

In short, the difference between a Sunni and a Shia is like the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic. They’re ALL Muslims. If there are other ‘class’ differences, they’ve never been any more ‘acute’ than the ones here.

So, I’m not buying the ‘old hostilities’ or any of the rest of that. I know better. And while I certainly cannot legitimately call myself an ‘expert’ on all things Middle Eastern, or even the history of the region, I suspect I know more than the average American has bothered to learn, and especially this Administration.

The REASON that experts advised well in advance, that the civil violence in Iraq would happen, is based largely on the fact that the same damn thing happens ANYWHERE when a foreign entity proceeds to an occupation. It’s the same thing that’s happening right here at home, for only partially different reasons. Resources become scarce, and human beings begin fighting with each other for those dwindling resources.
In reality, it was at least a year before the civil strife in Iraq began, and we know that it was instigated by US and other forces. So we also know that for the most part, the majority of Iraqis waited to see if the US really WAS going to leave their country, after ousting Saddam.

So, let’s simply drop the arrogance of us seeing ourselves as the ‘defenders’ of innocent Iraqis against further harm. They’ve been demanding that we leave their nation for over 4 years now, and the US has made it clear that they have no intentions of going anywhere. What arrogance do you indulge in, that allows you to believe that the Iraqis are not perfectly capable of handling their own affairs?

Do I believe that the violence would stop immediately upon our exit? Absolutely not! Can a train stop on a dime? NO! And, that’s exactly the kind of chaos that’s been intentionally kindled over the past 5 years. Worse than the worst ever train wreck.

So no, just like the fire itself doesn’t go out as soon as the fuel source is removed, I don’t expect all to fall immediately into calm. I also know that the US is already responsible for taking the lives of over a million innocent Iraqis, as well as the dislocation of millions more, creating the worst refugee crisis since Israel did the same to the Palestinians.

Consequently, yours is a bogus argument based on typical American arrogance. So, not really so ‘odd’.

Cyrena,

I totally agree with you that were no terrorists until the invasion and that our actions are solely responsible for the quagmire that is the current situation in Iraq.

Where we disagree, however, is where to go from here. You assert that the only way to quell the unrest, is ‘to remove the fuel from the fire’ - for America to leave.

The fuel is not the occupation and never really was. What the US achieved, namely through unrivalled stupidity and ignorance, was to blow the lid off a powder keg that has unleashed a violent conflict with myriad factions vying for power.

My argument is not based in the idea of fighting terrorism, rather, it is rooted in the same train off thought as my opposition to the invasion: we should not take a course of action that is driven by ideology and would result in the widespread suffering for an untold number of people.

To assume that by leaving Iraq things would settle or an equilibrium would be achieved is naive. As much progressives are reluctant to admit, ‘the surge’ has provided space for dialogue by reducing violence. This is positive and it behooves us to support a tactic that is currently the only hope for stability in Iraq.

http://oddlyamerican.wordpress.com/

“Those who claim that by “a hundred years” McCain was talking about a long-term peacetime deployment like the U.S. military presence in South Korea are being disingenuous or obtuse. In and around Seoul, citizens aren’t shooting at American soldiers or trying to blow them up with roadside bombs—and U.S. combat forces aren’t taking sides in bloody internecine battles over power and wealth.”

Correct - it was the North Koreans that were shooting at U.S. troops and our presence there, as in Iraq, prevents two bitterly divided groups from annihilating one another.  Were we to leave S.K., the two groups would likely begin fighting again. Hence bases, for a hundred years is necessary.

Oddlyamerican,

You’re agrument only makes sense in terms of your failure to understand that overall, there have been no ‘terrorists’ identified in Iraq, aside from the US.

It’s a major pill for Americans to swallow, in accepting the fact that WE (and our continued occupation of that nation)are the REASON for the conflict, which is why LEAVING there is the ONLY way that it can be resolved.

You appear to have forgotten, (or maybe never otherwise understood) that..ASIDE FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN, there were no TERRORISTS in Iraq, prior to the US invasion and occupation of that sovereign nation state. And, even Saddam was NOT the ‘terrorist’ that we have become. Furthermore, I would remind you that he is now GONE!

So, the on-going fighting that is happening in Iraq is NOT the result of ‘outside terrorist’ activity, and that is the only ‘argument’ that one attempts to use, to justify a continued presence there.

The reality is that the US occupation has CREATED the fire that is Iraq, (which includes the civil conflict, and it was INTENTIONAL) and like any other fire, it cannot and will not be extinguished until the FUEL SOURCE is REMOVED. The US presence in Iraq is exactly that fuel source.

I rest my case.

NOT ‘defined’, at least not correctly

What I believe is a very ‘related’ issue on this, is that recently retired Fallon, (and we have to accept that it was a forced ‘retirement’) will NOT be allowed to address Congress in this presentation before the Senate and House committees. Never mind that he was selected by the Pentagon/Bush? To be the CHIEF of U.S. Central Command overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..what, just over a year ago? And well, it ‘didn’t work out’ because he has not been willing to go along with the slaughter, and he’s been the only person standing between ‘the rest of us’ (the world) and Dick Cheney on the planned US military domination of Iran as well.

• “Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to speak before Senate and House committees April 8-9. Petraeus is expected to recommend stopping troop reductions while the security situation in Iraq is assessed.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208E.shtml

So it is on this part of this excellent post from Louise, that I PARTIALLY disagree:

• “So get ready folks. The Government of the Privileged, The Liar In Chief, his Military Commander and all the kings men are even now creating more lies.”

I agree with this part for sure. More lies on the way.

• “They have to. They have no choice! ..Lets face it. They don’t have a clue what else to do! ..They cant end the war because THEY DON’T KNOW HOW! ..And they cant win the war, because THEY DON’T KNOW HOW.”

My own ‘take’ on this, is that ‘they’ WON’T end the war, because THEY DON’T WANT TO!

IMHO, this goes directly to the title of the piece, “Consider Iraq DEFINED”. I would argue that this war, CHENEY’S War, or the war of the PNAC signatories, has NEVER BEEN DEFINED for what it ACTUALLY IS. This ‘war’ cannot be stopped or ‘won’ until we recognize the purpose for it to begin with, and I suspect that only a handful of those involved in the actually mechanics of it, really KNOW or understand that, including the majority of the GOP lackeys who blindly carry out the orders and the organization, for what keeps it going. 

Now of course this is going to appear to be yet another ‘chapter’ or verse in my ongoing “theory” which I AM willing to address as a ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’ but just NOT MY OWN! In other words, I didn’t create the theory, or the ideology, or the practices that resulted from this ideology. (never ending war)

Still, it is what it is, so I’m simply acknowledging that LONG AGO, and as far back as 1997 when the ideology was formally created and etched in lasting documents, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, (as well as Iran and probably Syria as well) was already determined. In short, the ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES of the Project For a New American Century, (and those who have since signed on) established the goals and the ideology of their ‘movement’ (and yes, it is a global one, not unlike that of Nazism and Communism) to be this: American Military Global Domination. Those ‘within’ this movement are committed to exactly that. It IS and has been “The Agenda’ for well over a decade, (involving long established political actors).

This is NOT to be confused with all of the “NWO” conspiracy theorists, because they’ve been dealing in red herrings. Rather, this is very much the plan of a few, to be undertaken by ‘fooling’ the many.
So, even the term ‘win’ cannot be properly defined, when the goal has never been articulated. The ‘real’ goal/purpose has never been articulated to the US public. Rather, we’ve simply been subjected to over 6 years of lies, to cover-up the REAL agenda.

It will be a redux of the capitulation of South Vietnam, who, BTW are eager trading partners now.

What we could never win in battle, we gain in peace.

“If Democrats are going to take several more months settling on a presidential nominee, they had better find some way to stop giving John McCain a free ride on Iraq. He should have to explain why he wants to keep us on George Bush’s long, winding path to nowhere.”

***

Aw, but the long, winding path to nowhere is about to change. At least the perception.

Be forewarned!

***

http://www.upi.com

GOP, Democrats plan media blitz on Iraq

Republicans reportedly are planning to blitz Democrats’ stance on the war in Iraq before next week’s congressional update from U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus.

A strategy memo from GOP leadership calls on congressional Republicans to advance the party’s position with conservative bloggers and talk-show hosts, including a nationwide radio event April 9 -

The memo said the message should focus on military successes in Iraq and the need to pass war funding not tied to troop withdrawal - It also suggested working with organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign War or the American Legion to deliver the message.

Democrats, meanwhile, are preparing their own media blitz, pointing to national polls that indicate a growing dissatisfaction with the war -

Lawmakers are expected to consider this month a supplemental $102.5 billion request for 2008 war spending - Democratic leaders indicated they plan to link to a withdrawal plan.

Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are scheduled to speak before Senate and House committees April 8-9. Petraeus is expected to recommend stopping troop reductions while the security situation in Iraq is assessed.

***

So get ready folks. The Government of the Privileged, The Liar In Chief, his Military Commander and all the kings men are even now creating more lies.

They have to. They have no choice!
Lets face it. They don’t have a clue what else to do!

They cant end the war because THEY DON’T KNOW HOW!

And they cant win the war, because THEY DON’T KNOW HOW!

The only thing this pathetic group knows is how to START A WAR!  But with just a few days of measurable success when super-dud strutted on that carrier, they obviously DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DO THAT RIGHT!

So they can only pretend. Pretend and lie. Lie and pretend and lie some more.

Like the twelve year old who started dad’s car and drove it through the house. Nobody got around to showing him the difference between the gas peddle and the brake. Nobody ever got around to telling him the difference between right and wrong. And, nobody ever held him accountable, so he’d have a chance to learn something from that misadventure.

Well now that twelve year old is big. Not grown up, but big. And he still doesn’t understand the difference between the gas peddle and the brake. Or the difference between right and wrong. And he sure doesn’t understand that accountability thing!

No hope there. Absolutely NO HOPE THERE. The big guy will always be just shy of twelve. Only not quite as bright as the toddler next door.

But how about the criminals in the background? The GOP! They know better. They just don’t care.

Ride out the death and violence till the next election. And if their guy, old blood and thunder gets elected - they can go on deluding themselves a little longer. Untill the whole bottom falls out.

I suspect if the GOP holds on to the White House, we’ll see this war come to an end much like Vietnam. Only worse. With our guys scrambling to get out of town. My God didn’t anyone learn anything from that disaster? McCain has a bit of an excuse - he was locked up.

What excuse do the rest of those nincompoops have?

You do realize, that if this war lasts as long as he expects, Johnny McFlounder will be almost 180 years old?

Seriously, though, Eugene, I got on here for one reason and that is to implore you to never again agree to sit side-by-side with Tucker Carlson ever again, Matthews ought to be ashamed, or his producers.

It was like Bucky the Squirrel debating Abe Lincoln. I was trying to eat supper, it made everything taste real bad. 

The pundit v the poundit.

I usually can’t even watch when Tucker is on, but I won’t ever turn it when you are on, I’m a real fan, so you guys put me in a real dilema.

Sorry, but my darker angels won and I turned it to CNN, just long enough for Tucker to get done.  But then I missed your opinion, and I am sorry for that.

I had thought, that with David Gregory taking Tucker’s place, and Abrams shooing Mondo Joe off of prime time, I might now actually be able to watch MSNBC through an entire evening without suffering any insults to my intelligence or my patriotism.

So now they bring back the bow-tie boy and put him on screen with one of the true legitimate journalists they actually have access to?

Please, pass my concerns along to Chris, I WANT to watch MSNBC, but not if that little snot-nosed Fortunate One.  I can’t imagine how he stayed on the air as long as he did.

I pondered hanging a sheet over the Tucker side of the screen (there’s a load of symbolism) but decided I would go ahead and turn it, then get on here today and beg you to avoid that situation again.

Talk about split-screen!

“Wouldn’t the only plausible reason for continuing the occupation of Iraq be to fight terrorists—rather than help one Shiite leader against another?”

This is the common argument from conservatives- that we need to ‘stay the course’ and fight the terrorists who threaten our freedom. But supporting a continued presence in Iraq is not the exclusive domain of conservatives. Progressives should also realize the potential destruction that a withdrawal would herald for Iraqi civilians.

If progressives are to be consistent in their values then a continuing presence demands their advocacy, for the risk of a human catastrophe that exiting Iraq would leave in its wake is too great.

The evidence you site in support of your argument (poor governance and the chaotic mess born of a power struggle between a multiude of different factions), should in fact demonstrate the need for a continuing presence in Iraq.

As heinous as Bush’s initial invasion was and its subsequent inept occupation, to pull out now, as the general gist of your article suggests, would be just as morally corrupt as the reasoning that led us here in the first place i.e a course of action taken under political pressure from the far ends of the political spectrum without regard for the very people such an action would affect.

The parallel between the invasion and a quick withdrawal should be obvious given the recent events in Iraq.

http://oddlyamerican.wordpress.com/

...long before this country has been there a hundred years, and oil or no oil, America will have to leave Iraq because it simply cannot afford to keep fighting this ridiculous war.

“...He should have to explain why he wants to keep us on George Bush’s long, winding path to nowhere...”

No need. It’s one of those Republican “wink and nod” things, like their seeming inability to overturn Roe and like tax cuts whilst fighting a war . . . AND like running against negroes in the south.

We have control of the oil.

That is why we went to Iraq with force.

We just don’t much like talking about coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing as a national policy, that’s all.

Report: US Embassy moving elsewhere. Sunni group claims GreenZone attacks

The Qatari paper AlArab had this on its front page this morning:

A military source lifted the veil on information that the American ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has decided to change the location of the American Embassy [which is now] in the Green Zone in Baghdad, because it has been suject to a series of rocket attacks in recent days, that have led to the killing and injuring of a number of American employees.

General Faisal AlAsafi, commander of a Green Zone entrance-protection unit, told AlArab that American Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave the order Saturday night to more the location of the Baghdad Embassy, temporarily, from the Green Zone to an alternate location, which he didn’t specify. He said a crew composed of dozens of officials and diplomats moved the contents of the embassy to another location toward the west[ern part of] Baghdad, fearing additional rocket attacks on the Green Zone, insisting that the move is a temporary one, with the aim of the success of the joint forces in stopping the rocket attacks on the Green Zone, and pointing out that the British and Australian embassies might take the same decision in the coming hours.

And Asafi said many parliamentarians and ministers have emptied their premises in the Green Zone following a series of attacks that were accurate and precise in targeting the offices of foreign embassies and the government of Iraq, and the homes of many of ministers and parliamentarians.
The AlArab reporter notes that American officials have barred his paper and others from bringing any video equipment into the Green Zone since the attacks started, and have barred the taking of any pictures of the damage.

The AlArab reporter still assumes that all the attacks have been by the Mehdi Army. But Roads to Iraq points out that there has now been a published claim of responsibility by the Sunni resistance faction Jaish al-Muslimin, part of the Jihad and Change Front, for all of the attacks on the Green Zone since Saturday March 29 and including those of this morning (Monday March 31).

http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/03/report-us-embass y-moving-elsewhere.html

Relax, everyone. The primary military objective was achieved in Iraq in early May 2003 and announced by the Chancellor on the deck of one of our carriers. Now, what’s happening is the reconciliation of the united Iraqi people, casting aside old tribal differences and petty grudges for the greater good and joining in the streets, Shiia and Sunni, to celebrate freedom and democracy.
The fact that the streets are red with blood, flow with raw sewage, and are mined with IEDs is nothing to be concerned about. Or that the Shiites have turned on one another after cleansing the Sunnis from wide areas. We have already won. I know because my president would not lie.

Maliki’s defeat showed he does not even have the support of Iraq’s Shiites (unless they are on the payroll).  The fact of the matter is Iraqis will not accept a permanent U.S. imperialist occupation.  The U.S. ruling class needs to accept that reality.

Well Eugene, and all…

I think it’s finally time for us to all realize that none of this stuff is a reality. For instance:

“…It was George W. Bush who called last week’s fighting in Basra and other Iraqi cities a defining moment for the fledgling government. By that standard, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been defined as an impulsive leader and an inept general—and his government as a work barely in progress….”

Let’s face it, Maliki is not a ‘leader’ impulsive or otherwise, and he damn sure isn’t a ‘general’. He’s a US puppet, and he does what Cheney tells George, to tell HIM to do. Maliki and GW are equally inept and impulsive, and corrupt, which is why they both just do what they’re told. As for the government of Iraq being a work in progress, it was never intended to be. It was intended to be destroyed, (which it was, along with military and the rest of the bureaucratic infrastructure) and replaced with a US Dick Bush puppet regime.

That’s been the plan, since at least 1997, and that’s the way it’s ‘progressing.’

Same here:

• “…Maliki’s decision to send troops into Basra and root out the “criminal gangs” that controlled the city was praised by the White House as a bold move to assert the Iraqi government’s sovereignty..”

Please Eugene, stop believing everything you read in the newspapers, and ESPECIALLY anything from the White House or the chimp’s mouth.

This wasn’t Maliki’s decision!! Since when did Maliki grow some hair on his chest? And did Maliki command all of the US air power and bombs, with which there would have been no ‘sending of troops’ into Basra or anywhere else!!

Jeeze…this was just another standard military operation decided and carried out by the Pentagon, and that’s that. Cheney is getting sick of having to mess around with these Iraqis in the way of HIS oil.

• “…Maliki went to Basra to personally oversee military operations. History will not confuse him with Napoleon.”..

That’s what I’m talking about. It’s like the little shrub going over there to ‘oversee military operations’. What a farce.

On this:

• “What, exactly, did the United States use its military might to accomplish last week?”

Answer: they accomplished another exercise in the original goal, (of the PNAC)…of US GLOBAL DOMINATON via MILITARY FORCE!!

“We intervened in a struggle among various Shiite power centers for control of a city where much of Iraq’s oil industry—and thus much of its potential wealth—is based.”..

DUH Eugene. We intervened where much of Iraq’s OIL INDUSTRY IS BASED!! THEY (the Iraqis) aren’t supposed to be fighting over it, when it BELONGS TO US!! (or at least to the neo-cons and Dick Bush). What are you THINKING Eugene? You’re starting to annoy me.

• “We boosted the morale and fervor of the most implacable opponents of continued American occupation.”

Well obviously, this wasn’t the intended result. With arrogance and hubris, we just assumed we’d wipe them all out, and get to the oil!!!

As for John McSame, he’s “fine” with the plan.  And, since Dick Bush has been getting a ‘free ride’ for 8 years, on Iraq and everything else, why would you expect anyone to challenge McSame on it?

Maliki’s decision to send troops into Basra and root out the “criminal gangs” that controlled the city was praised by the White House as a bold move to assert the Iraqi government’s sovereignty. In reality, though, it looked more like an attempt to boost Maliki’s political standing.....

In a DEMOCRACY, you don’t bomb the opposition parties. It not only doesn’t win you votes, it puts you at risk of losing all in a revolution, whether armed or at the ballot box.

Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr IS the opposition party that the USA doesn’t want to acknowledge in ITS precious one-party state. And they obviously don’t understand the significance of Karbala in the local religion and its proximity to Baghdad.

But Al-Sadr is the son of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad al-Sadr, who was killed in 1999 by agents presumed to be working for Saddam Hussein, thus becoming one of the major symbols of Shi’a resistance to the former regime. He harly has to conjure up the image of the the Mahdi or Imaam Hussein, the grandson of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed to command a significant following.

The USA dare not assassinate him either lest there really will be a wholesale uprising and revolution in Iraq. A few shape charges from Iran or wherever would be nothing in comparison.......