Here are a few short items which I will likely add to a little bit later today:
(1) I'm going to be on Air America's Majority Report tonight at 8:35 pm. You can find your local AAR station here or listen to the live audio feed here.
(2) As is their practice, Amazon has unilaterally reduced the price for How Would a Patriot Act? by 40%. The book continues to occupy the #1 position on the Amazon Top Sellers List. The tour, interviews, appearances, etc. are being planned now and will be scheduled around the date of the book's release (May 15). I will post those here as they are confirmed.
(3) This is what Michelle Malkin said about Ramesh Ponnuru's new Ben Domenech-edited book Party of Death:
Party of Death is the most important book of the year, if not the decade. Ramesh Ponnuru, one of the nation’s most penetrating and lucid young conservative thinkers, makes a thorough, reasoned case for respecting life. The good news is that the death cult of Planned Parenthood, Howard Dean, and the New York Times is on the way to ultimate defeat.--Michelle Malkin
What is "ultimate defeat"? Isn't death ultimate defeat? Why does everything which Michelle Malkin says always have such deranged and angry undercurrents, and isn't it particularly ironic to wish "ultimate defeat" on people while praising a book supposedly devoted to the decrying of death values?
(4) In other Corner news, Kathryn Jean Lopez finally comes clean and admits: "I credit Lucianne Goldberg with getting him the job" -- only she wasn't talking about all of Jonah's employers, but instead about Tony Snow's hiring as Press Secretary.
(5) Speaking of Michelle Malkin and the Corner, Michelle is (as always) enraged; today it's about some vandalism at UNC-Chapel Hill's ROTC armory, reflected by this picture which she posts:
Although Michelle blames left-wing anti-war protestors for the vandalism, couldn't that message have been expressed just as easily - and just as accurately - by people like Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, John Hinderaker, Michael Ledeen, or Jonah Goldberg?
(6) The news from Iraq today:
A sister of Iraq’s new Sunni Arab vice president was killed Thursday in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad, a day after the politician called for the Sunni-dominated insurgency to be crushed by force.
In southern Iraq, a bomb hit an Italian military convoy, killing four soldiers — three Italians and a Romanian — and seriously injuring another passenger, officials in Rome said. The bomb struck the convoy near an Italian military base in Nasiriyah, a heavily Shiite city 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, said local Iraqi government spokesman Haidr Radhi.
Elsewhere, a U.S. jet fired two missiles at insurgent positions in Ramadi, U.S. officers said. Fighting also broke out northeast of Baghdad between Iraqi forces and insurgents.
Just the sheer quantity of killing on a daily basis makes it morally reprehensible for politically motivated individuals to minimize the violence and to suggest that it's really just all overblown.
(7) Arlen Specter today threatened to introduce legislation to cut off funding for the illegal NSA program if the White House does not cease stonewalling the investigation he is trying to conduct:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Thursday he is considering legislation to cut off funding for the Bush administration's secret domestic wiretapping program until he gets satisfactory answers about it from theWhite House.
"Institutionally, the presidency is walking all over Congress at the moment," Specter, R-Pa., told the panel. "If we are to maintain our institutional prerogative, that may be the only way we can do it." Specter said he had informed President Bush about his intention and that he has attracted several potential co-sponsors. He said he's become increasingly frustrated in trying to elicit information about the program from senior White House officials at several public hearings.
According to a copy of the amendment obtained by The Associated Press, it would enact a "prohibition on use of funds for domestic electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes unless Congress is kept fully and currently informed."
Specter also agreed with Democrats who say that any of the bills to tighten guidelines for National Security Agency program and increase congressional oversight could be flatly ignored by an administration with a long history of acting alone in security matters.
"It is true that we have no assurance that the president would follow any statute that we enact," Specter said. He said he's considering adding an amendment to stop funding of the program to an Iraq war- hurricane relief bill being debated by the Senate this week and next.
I can't count how many times I have criticized Specter for exhibiting pretenses of independence and dignity only to back down and obediently fall into line behind the White House. It's his defining charateristic. And the realization that the President preserves the right to break the law and that the White House is "walking all over Congress" is a few years late.
But still, it is encouraging to hear a Republican Senator in his position (Judicary Committee Chair) clearly state that the President believes he can break the law and threaten to cut off funds unless the White House cooperates with the Senate's investigation into the NSA scandal (h/t John Stephenson of Stop the ACLU, who says about Specter and others who think that the President shouldn't break the law: "If we are attacked again, and it could have been prevented by this program, you know who to point the finger at").
Stephenson, like so many Bush defenders, apparently thinks that the United States is so weak that we can only defend ourselves by allowing the President to break the law when he wants to. Ronald Reagan managed to comply with FISA while waging war against the Soviet Empire, but George Bush can't defend the country against some jihadists unless he eavesdrops on us without warrants.
(8) A video featuring Al Qaeda leader/Iraq branch Abu Musab al-Zarqawi surfaced the other day, and a U.S. military official is saying that it's "an act of desperation . . . that is indeed Zarqawi in his final hours." The official said: "He knows the people of Iraq are on the verge of foming a national unity government and democracy equals failure for Zarqawi. So he's pulling out all stops."
It's so interesting how this works. Whenever we don't hear from Al Qaeda leaders for awhile, it means that we're winning, because their absence that shows how they have to hide in caves and are probably really hurt or even dead. But then when we do hear from them, that also shows we're winning, because it shows that they're desperate and they know they're in their final hours.
It's the same formula that's used to assess increases and decreases in insurgent violence in Iraq. When the violence decreases for awhile, it means that we're winning because the insurgency is dying. When it increases, that means we're winning because it shows how desperate they're getting; they know they're dying and increased outbursts of violence are their last chance.
That's so lucky for us. Every event -- even opposite ones -- means we're winning. How come, then, we don't seem to be any closer to leaving, or achieving anything that would have made the incalculably costly invasion even remotely worth the costs?
Thanks for that informative post. Contratulation on your book deal, I hope that you can make it to the Tampa Bay area for a lecture.
ReplyDeleteYour points about Malkin are well taken. Many who advocate such an extreme postion are angry, almost in an undirected way.
Keep up the good work.
Congratulations on the radio appearance--I hope this is just the first of many.
ReplyDeleteKeith Olberman, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Colbert, and Jon Stewart are probably the best shows to get on. Good luck!
Glenn:
ReplyDelete(6) The news from Iraq today:
A sister of Iraq’s new Sunni Arab vice president was killed Thursday in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad, a day after the politician called for the Sunni-dominated insurgency to be crushed by force.
In southern Iraq, a bomb hit an Italian military convoy, killing four soldiers — three Italians and a Romanian — and seriously injuring another passenger, officials in Rome said. The bomb struck the convoy near an Italian military base in Nasiriyah, a heavily Shiite city 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, said local Iraqi government spokesman Haidr Radhi.
Elsewhere, a U.S. jet fired two missiles at insurgent positions in Ramadi, U.S. officers said. Fighting also broke out northeast of Baghdad between Iraqi forces and insurgents.
Just the sheer quantity of killing on a daily basis makes it morally reprehensible for politically motivated individuals to minimize the violence and to suggest that it's really just all overblown.
Huh?
US KIA are down about 60% since last fall.
http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_in_iraq/casualties.asp
al Qaeda suicide bombings are down by about 60% since last summer.
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4956
Insurgent attacks on Iraqi infrastructure have plunged by 60% in the last quarter.
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/april/04_19_2.html
You will notice that the Donkey media was not reporting these figures. Big surprise...
However, even your MSN article proves how weak the Sunni terror campaign has become when they are reduced to murdering the sister of the Sunni VP of the country who is calling for the Iraqi military to crush the insurgency. Meanwhile, the article reports that Iraqi troops are on the offensive engaging what remains of the Sunni insurgency around Bagdad.
Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home.
Bart's sources appear to be little better than Faux news. Right wing sources that are little better than listening to the daily drivel from Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDeleteThe contention that this war is just about over is about as idiotic a comment I have ever read. Doubtlessly Bart knows nothing about the Vietnam conflict and the continual lies of the government.
Glenn, you should place comments by Bart in the other pieces you've done regarding the brainwashed behaviour of the Bush idolators.
Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home.
ReplyDeletenope and nope. Wish it were, though!
From Bart at 3:46PM:
ReplyDelete"US KIA are down about 60% since last fall."
Oh, so its only important when we have daily casualities in the double-digits, as opposed to singles? Interesting outlook.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of WIA has actually risen in the meanwhile.
"You will notice that the Donkey media was not reporting these figures. Big surprise..."
On this, you and I agree entirely.
"However, even your MSN article proves how weak the Sunni terror campaign has become when they are reduced to murdering the sister of the Sunni VP of the country who is calling for the Iraqi military to crush the insurgency."
You really don't understand Low-Intensity Warfare or classic insurgency strategy, do you? The insurgent doesn't win by big battles with a heavier armed or better protected opponent. They win by hitting soft targets, targeting and eliminating intelligencia and family of high-ranking officials, and ensuring the security landscape remains as chaotic and insecure as possible. They keep hitting the public's confidence in the ability of the government to protect them daily, and ultimately the public looses confidence in said government.
The fact the Iraqi government hasn't even met yet doesn't help matters.
As for the 'Iraqi troops' in combat, I'll withhold judgment until I know how they've actually performed.
"Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home."
I agree with the first sentence; there is almost *no* chance the Iraqis will get their country back from us for at least another generation!
We'll see maybe a couple regiments brought home, then shipped back out, but I'd be very surprised if we see anything more.
Geez, Bart. Do you actually *think* beyond the talking points before you type this stuff?
Bart- Right on dude! Mission accomplished! I'll bet you got your knowledge of the Vietnam war from Rambo and Chuck Norris movies but I got to live through it and the troop drawdown gambit is a time honored pre-election scam perfected by Nixon and Henry Kissinger et al. This is where 'Shooter' Cheney and Rumdog got their education and the results will be the same though I doubt they'll let the news media publish pictures like the helicopters leaving the Saigon Embassy when we slink out of Iraq. PS. If you go to college citing blogs as news sources will not be acceptable to the liberal academics... just so ya know.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart's sources appear to be little better than Faux news. Right wing sources that are little better than listening to the daily drivel from Rush Limbaugh.
These are all DoD figures usually coming from coverage of the military press briefings.
Fox News covered some of this.
The question is why the Donkey media covered almost none of this.
The contention that this war is just about over is about as idiotic a comment I have ever read. Doubtlessly Bart knows nothing about the Vietnam conflict and the continual lies of the government.
Speaking of idiotic, exactly what military parallels could you possibly see between Vietnam and Iraq?
In Vietnam, the NVA was the 5th largest military and the world and was allowed to remain largely unmolested to train and supply in NV and Cambodia until it conquered the South after we cut and run.
In Iraq, you have about 1500 foreign al Qaeda, who have been decimated by a series of Iraqi/US offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border. Even better, this small la Qaeda group went to war with multiple Sunni Iraqi militias. Thus, the 60% drop in al Qaeda suicide attacks.
In South Vietnam, the enemy had a large indigenous guerilla force supported by a large portion of the population which controlled large sections of the countryside.
In Iraq, the Baathist terrorists have the support of some portion of the 20% of the population which is Sunni. It can project force only in its Sunni Triangle. It controls no large sections of territory.
In Vietnam, the IRVN could not conduct much in the way of offensive operations and the US did almost all that work. Thus, we lost 50,000 KIA.
In Iraq, the government military now controls over half of the battle space and is now doing most of the fighting. Thus, the roughly 60% plunge in our already very low KIA to about 1 per day. We have lost 2,000 KIA in Iraq.
The only valid comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is that you people wanted to cut and run from the enemy in both wars.
Thersites2 said...
ReplyDeleteFolks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home.
nope and nope. Wish it were, though!
Ah, the cut and run crowd are trying to take credit for the beginning of the drawdown this year.
People, this Brit press disclosed the drawdown plans over a year ago. The drawdown was to be triggered by the Iraqis setting up their own government. This is about to occur, thus the comments by General Pace.
Of course, the WH is not going to publish a withdrawal timetable for the enemy to peruse.
Also, we will maintain some level of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future to fight al Qaeda as we have in Afghanistan. Thus, your bases.
when you ague with Michelle Malkin, you validate her existence and perpetuate her business model.
ReplyDeleteAnd, can't we just ignore these hideous trolls like Malkin? She does this stuff to get attention. Stop giving her attention and she'll wither and die. . .
ReplyDeletewhen you ague with Michelle Malkin, you validate her existence and perpetuate her business model.
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment, for two reasons:
(1) Michelle Malkin is a huge phenomenon among Bush supporters. Her blog is among the most trafficked, she writes books that sell very well, she is on FOX News, she has a widely syndicated column.
Claiming that she will simply disappear if we ignore her is fantasy, wishful thinking. It's like the people who claim that Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter - with their millions of supporters and followers - will disappear if they are ignored. It's ludicrous. What's the basis for that claim?
(2) Even if you could make them disappear - and you can't - you should not want them to disappaer. The more extreme they are, the more they should be talked about. Bill Clinton constantly focused on Newt Gingrich and the most extremist Republicans because it helps to show their worst underbelly. That's why Republicans harp so much on Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore - accurately or not, they are susceptible to being depicted as extremists alien to most Americans - it is a tactic that works.
People like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are deranged and reprehensible to most people. You should WANT Americans to see them are representative of Bush followers. Ignoring them - and letting them rile up the base by feeding them red meat in secrecy, without paying a price for that - is the worst and most self-destructive thing you can do.
It allows Bush followers to get the benefits of alligning themselves with ugly extremists while not having to pay a price. I am always amazed at the number of people who think that if they shut their eyes tightly enough, bad things will disappear.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 3:46PM: "US KIA are down about 60% since last fall."
Oh, so its only important when we have daily casualities in the double-digits, as opposed to singles? Interesting outlook.
Yes. There is an enormous difference between 50 KIA per day and 1. The KIA are so low that normal accidental deaths make up a large percentage of the media reports as deaths in Iraq.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of WIA has actually risen in the meanwhile.
Check out the site I gave you for casualties. WIA are down about 20% since last fall.
If you check out the military blogs, there are a number of discussions as to why the discrepancy between KIA and WIA. The consensus is that the insurgents have lost most of the bomb makers trained during the Saddam regime and their replacements are not nearly as effective.
Bart: "You will notice that the Donkey media was not reporting these figures. Big surprise..."
On this, you and I agree entirely.
Given that the Donkey media had no trouble whatsoever using military sources for attacks and casualties when they were rising in 2004, the question is why they are now AWOL when these figures are plunging.
This basically guts the argument by the press that they are not consciously limiting their coverage to only negative news which will harm the war effort.
Bart: "However, even your MSN article proves how weak the Sunni terror campaign has become when they are reduced to murdering the sister of the Sunni VP of the country who is calling for the Iraqi military to crush the insurgency."
You really don't understand Low-Intensity Warfare or classic insurgency strategy, do you? The insurgent doesn't win by big battles with a heavier armed or better protected opponent. They win by hitting soft targets, targeting and eliminating intelligencia and family of high-ranking officials, and ensuring the security landscape remains as chaotic and insecure as possible. They keep hitting the public's confidence in the ability of the government to protect them daily, and ultimately the public looses confidence in said government.
Hardly. You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare. Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country.
Terrorism are attacks against the population for the purpose of generating enough fear to cause the population to submit.
However, terrorism has never conquered a country. It doesn't eliminate the government forces or take territory. It is simply one long war crime against the civilian population.
As for the 'Iraqi troops' in combat, I'll withhold judgment until I know how they've actually performed.
They have been fighting in the field for over a year and never lost a battle. They control most of Bagdad and pacified the highway to the airport which we could not do. They are now moving into and staying in every major population center in the Sunni Triangle.
Bart: "Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home."
We'll see maybe a couple regiments brought home, then shipped back out, but I'd be very surprised if we see anything more.
The announced plans call for the NG to rotate home normally and not to replace all of them with the next rotation. The draw down is likely to concentrate on NG and reserves this year. In 2007, I expect the drawdown to include regular troops and leave about a division equivalent like in Afghanistan.
Geez, Bart. Do you actually *think* beyond the talking points before you type this stuff?
What talking points?
I have been posting at other blogs for the past 8 months that we had essentially achieved all or our goals, denied the enemy his goals and would start to withdraw after the final government was in place.
The WH has and will continue to stick to the official line that we will not announce a timetable for withdrawals.
Strata was the first blogger who began to catch on to what I have been saying for months now.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1705#comments
From Bart at 4:23PM:
ReplyDelete"The question is why the Donkey media covered almost none of this."
Considering there really isn't any such thing, I suppose that answers the question right there.
If, on the other hand, you are wondering why the corporate news outlets are making a greater deal of this, well you've answered your own question again.
The low-level violence and disappointing performance of the Iraqi security servicse to date don't make for exciting copy do they? Tragedies all, yes, but hardly as interesting as it was six months ago.
"In Iraq, you have about 1500 foreign al Qaeda, who have been decimated by a series of Iraqi/US offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border."
You're point? Its not as if they're all that short of new recruits thanks to...well, pretty much everything the Bush Administration has done since 9/11.
"In Iraq, the Baathist terrorists have the support of some portion of the 20% of the population which is Sunni. It can project force only in its Sunni Triangle. It controls no large sections of territory."
Again, insurgency warfare isn't focused on 'controlling' territory as it works to undercut government control and security as broadly as possible.
"In Iraq, the government military now controls over half of the battle space and is now doing most of the fighting. Thus, the roughly 60% plunge in our already very low KIA to about 1 per day. We have lost 2,000 KIA in Iraq."
That remains a problematic assertion, particularly in light of the ongoing insurgency. The 60% 'plunge' in KIAs you cite may be correct statistically, but it doesn't tell the whole story, does it? What about WIAs? What about all those 'stop-loss' measures?
"The only valid comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is that you people wanted to cut and run from the enemy in both wars."
I'll let you have your bile. You've earned it, and nothing more.
Bart continues at 4:32PM:
"Also, we will maintain some level of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future to fight al Qaeda as we have in Afghanistan. Thus, your bases."
Like I've said, the Iraqis won't get their country back from us for at least a generation. Thanks for confirming this, Bart.
The perps will never be prosecuted, unless they arrest, charge and convict, the Malkins, but I don't think there is any law against defacing your own property. Filing a false police report, however...
ReplyDeleteDo we know that left-wing “anti-war” protesters are responsible for this vandalism? Is there any proof, or do we have to take Malkin’s word for it?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is
Digby’s recent post about that fine “Christian” man (George Allen) running for president who spent his high-school years in California driving around with confederate flag license plate on it, but also, apparently he was also involved in a little graffiti vandalism himself.
All five people who described the incident say the graffiti was racially tinged and meant to look like the handiwork of the black Morningside students. But it was actually put there by Allen and some of his friends.
So if a racist like Allen vandalized to make it look like blacks did it to stir up hatred, isn’t it also possible that one of Malkin’s munchkins was responsible for this latest graffiti?
I don’t know who did it. But does Malkin? Let’s keep in mind that people who follow her are quite capable of pulling a stunt like Allen did in his youth. Just saying.
I'm going to forgo a point-by-point refutation of Bart this time.
ReplyDeleteI'll simply say the following:
Focusing just on percentages of KIA or WIA betrays just how cheaply the commentator holds human life. The fact we're talking about his former brothers and sisters in uniform is even more telling. I, personally, I'm a tad disgusted.
What we're seeing in Iraq right now doesn't neatly fit the definition of either 'low-intensity warfare', 'insurgency', or simple 'terrorism'. Its a mish-mash of tactics and techniques from all three, and its destroying the country and its future as surely as if we simply nuked it down to the bedrock. The tragedy is it was likely inevitable the minute we invaded, and we will pay the price for it in days and years to come.
I direct Bart to the US Army's War College, which recently published a very detailed study that concluded this entire expedition was doomed from the start. I'll post a link shortly.
That's it. I'm done for the moment.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 4:23PM: "The question is why the Donkey media covered almost none of this."
Considering there really isn't any such thing, I suppose that answers the question right there.
If, on the other hand, you are wondering why the corporate news outlets are making a greater deal of this, well you've answered your own question again.
What?
1) These are the same military figures which the Donkey media had no problem reporting when they were going up in 2004. This is a media editorial issue, not a figures issue.
2) The Donkey media are all owned by media conglomerates. The sources which I cited reporting the current military figures are bloggers or much smaller news services. Sorry, no corporate conspiracy to promote the war here.
The low-level violence and disappointing performance of the Iraqi security servicse to date don't make for exciting copy do they?
Are you kidding? That is all the Donkey media report. Glenn's MSN article is Exhibit 1.
Bart: "In Iraq, you have about 1500 foreign al Qaeda, who have been decimated by a series of Iraqi/US offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border."
You're point? Its not as if they're all that short of new recruits thanks to...well, pretty much everything the Bush Administration has done since 9/11.
Who do you think ordered the series of offensives which decimated al Qaeda?
Hint: It wasn't Murtha, who claimed out military was broken and had lost the war.
Bart: "Also, we will maintain some level of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future to fight al Qaeda as we have in Afghanistan. Thus, your bases."
Like I've said, the Iraqis won't get their country back from us for at least a generation. Thanks for confirming this, Bart.
1) We have bases across the world. We don't run all the countries in which we have bases.
2) The permanent Iraqi government's top Shia and top Sunni both want us out. Once they can stand on their own, we may be told to leave whether we want to or not.
3) Neither you or I have any idea what a future Administration will do with Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we get Feingold, we will cut and run within 6 months.
If we get McCain or Guliani, we will stay and fight in the ME.
If we get Clinton, we will do whatever he pollsters tell her to do.
Bart said...Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home.
ReplyDelete3:46 PM
You sound more like Homer, to me, as in Simpson. Look! Over there! A donut!
Glenn writes: People like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are deranged and reprehensible to most people. You should WANT Americans to see them are representative of Bush followers. Ignoring them - and letting them rile up the base by feeding them red meat in secrecy, without paying a price for that - is the worst and most self-destructive thing you can do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that 100%. I read people like Jeff Goldstein citing Malkin approvingly, or rushing to her defense -- thinking they exempt themselves from any contamination via their pious avowals that they disagree with Michelle on some social issues -- and it makes me ill. First, those social issues are damned important, and second, the manner in which she incites anger and deranged hatred of people who disagree with her on social and nearly all issues, is worthy of condemnation in its own right.
No decent person should be willing to be associated with people like Malkin, on any level. It is quite proper to spotlight why that is so.
"Although Michelle blames left-wing anti-war protestors for the vandalism, couldn't that message have been expressed just as easily - and just as accurately - by people like Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, John Hinderaker, Michael Ledeen, or Jonah Goldberg?"
ReplyDeletei don't see any of these guys whipping out paint in order to express themselves by way of vandalism. the cowardly criminal act is especially troubling given UNC administration's refusal to call terrorism terrorism
btw: i like how a post with a lecture about "ultimate defeat" rhetoric includes comments which would deny "validat[ing] her existence" and hoping she "whither and die"
Yanno Bart, you're gonna have to get out of the habit of using our party's symbol and mascot, the Donkey, as a pejorative. Too many elephants couldn't forget what "Republican" really stands for and have joined us, mingled with our DNA and created an awesome new beast. And now that we have the elephant's excellent memory and will never forget, as well as the kick like a mule we are known for, I'd say you are about to get the ass-kicking you so richly deserve, with a little more mass behind it than before. We are still as stubborn as mules, but since we are not a cross between a horse and donkey, you might want to occupy your time coming up with an appropriate neologism to serve as a new pejorative. One wonders what you might come up with? 'Elephino.
ReplyDeletei don't see any of these guys whipping out paint in order to express themselves by way of vandalism.
ReplyDeleteNo - they're jsut sending their young fellow citizens off to die in wars they are too afraid to fight in.
Between kids who spray paint a school, and cowards who send others off to die in their wars, I think I prefer the former.
Bart 3:46PM said:
ReplyDeleteUS KIA are down about 60% since last fall.
http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_in_iraq/casualties.asp
No, US KIA is down 40% since last fall, not 60% (unless Bart was cherry-picking two specific months).
1QTR 2006 KIA (148) is 60% of, or 40% less than 4QTR 2005 KIA (248).
1QTR 2005 KIA (200) is 74% of, or 26% less than 4QTR 2004 KIA (272).
1QTR 2004 KIA (119) is 71% of, or 29% less than 4QTR 2003 KIA (166).
1 QTR 2006 WIA+KIA (948) is 57% of, or 43% less than 4QTR 2005 WIA+KIA (1663).
1 QTR 2005 WIA+KIA (1484) is 51% of, or 49% less than 4QTR 2004 WIA+KIA (2888).
1QTR 2004 WIA+KIA (780) is 66% of, or 34% less than 4QTR 2003 WIA+KIA (1177).
1QTR 2006 KIA is 74% of, or 26% less than 1 QTR 2005 KIA.
1QTR 2006 KIA is 124% of, or 24% greater than 1 QTR 2004 KIA.
1 QTR 2006 WIA+KIA is 65% of, or 35% less than 1 QTR 2005 WIA+KIA
1 QTR 2006 WIA+KIA is 122% of, or 22% greater than 1QTR 2004 WIA+KIA
The percent change in KIA between 1QTR 2006 vs. 4QTR 2005 is increased (good) 11% and 14% as compared to the 1QTR vs. 4QTR drops made the previous two years. But the percent change in WIA+KIA between 1QTR 2006 vs. 4QTR 2005 is actually decreased (bad) 6% as compared to last year, but increased (good) 9% as compared to two years ago.
What this means is that every spring sees a drop in KIA and WIA as compared to the previous fall. This spring the percent KIA drop is better than the last two years, but the percent WIA+KIA drop is actually worse than last year. Definitely there is no “success” trend, unless KIA and WIA+KIA numbers being between last year and the previous year are proof of an eminent “victory”.
Note: November 04 was the second Fallujah battle, though one instance of where insurgents decided to stand and fight en masse instead of hitting and running shouldn’t be taken as an anomaly in this analysis.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteDo we know that left-wing "anti-war" protesters are responsible for this vandalism? Is there any proof, or do we have to take Malkin’s word for it?
No one knows who's responsible yet, according the articles I read. But the images Malkin posted are photoshop jobs - very easy to confirm when you blow them up. I guess I should say "when you enlarge them." (Wouldn't want anyone twisting that into "Glenn's commenters incite violence").
wortel said: No - they're jsut[sic] sending their young fellow citizens off to die in wars they are too afraid to fight in.
ReplyDeleteBetween kids who spray paint a school, and cowards who send others off to die in their wars, I think I prefer the former.
under the concept of 'civilian control of the military', soldiers (who now voluntarily join the military) are dispatched by the constituationally elected officials. that would such scuffles as the war of 1812, the civil war, WWI, WWII...
only one of those mentioned by greenwald is elected, while the others publically and openly espouse their positions in a legal manner, not by vandalism.
btw, in most cases i don't prefer criminals over many people
btw2, Anonymous @ 511pm, i apparently don't have as much a sense of humor about attempted murder as you do.
nitish said...
ReplyDeletebtw2, Anonymous @ 511pm, i apparently don't have as much a sense of humor about attempted murder as you do.
You don't have a sense of humor, or a sense of smell either, or how could you remain in the cesspool you are in. In all likelihood, you are just completely senseless.
HOMICIDE, n.
The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homocide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain whether he fell by one kind or another -- the classification is for advantage of the lawyers.
halteclere said...
ReplyDeleteBart 3:46PM said:
US KIA are down about 60% since last fall.
http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_in_iraq/casualties.asp
No, US KIA is down 40% since last fall, not 60% (unless Bart was cherry-picking two specific months).
I am not comparing averages over quarters nor can I see a reason to do so.
In October 2005, KIA were 99. This was the tail end of a series of US/Iraqi offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border.
The KIA fell steadily every month after that peak until it hit 33 last month.
This is not "cherry picking two months." This is a steady decline in casualties over a 5 month period.
nitish said... btw, in most cases i don't prefer criminals over many people
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahaaaa!
Unless they are elected to public office as Republicans, you mean?
I was right. No damn sense at all.
ej said...
ReplyDeleteZack said...
Do we know that left-wing "anti-war" protesters are responsible for this vandalism? Is there any proof, or do we have to take Malkin’s word for it?
No one knows who's responsible yet, according the articles I read. But the images Malkin posted are photoshop jobs - very easy to confirm when you blow them up. I guess I should say "when you enlarge them." (Wouldn't want anyone twisting that into "Glenn's commenters incite violence").
6:09 PM
Police report filed? If not, you definitely have your answer. However, as I pointed out earlier, I wouldn't put it past them to lie about that and file a false one. Happens all the time, and those two lie like they breathe.
bart said...
ReplyDeletehalteclere said...
Bart 3:46PM said:
This is not "cherry picking two months." This is a steady decline in casualties over a 5 month period.
6:36 PM
And this has what to do with the failure of the mission, or do you not remember what the mission objective was, Bucko? What does this have to do with anything?
Bart! Donut! It's the round thing with the whole in it, like your head.
For all those in the Fever Swamp about FISA, feel free to come out of the muck.....
ReplyDeleteThe five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
Hmmm. Author of the FISA Act.
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteI am not comparing averages over quarters nor can I see a reason to do so.
The KIA fell steadily every month after that peak until it hit 33 last month.
Yes, there has been a reduction of KIA every month since October. But for the past three years every spring saw a reduction of KIAs, therefore a trend downward isn't as significant.
For the months of Dec '05/'06, Feb '05/'06 and Mar'05/'06, KIA numbers are similar as a year ago (+/-3). Oct '04 actually had 1/3 less KIA than Oct '05. Dec '04 and Jan '05 had more KIA, with Dec '04 having the most KIA of any month of the war.
In October 2005, KIA was 99. This was the tail end of a series of US/Iraqi offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border.
I haven't followed the day-to-day action of this war. What were the offensives that led to such high KIA spikes in Dec '04 and Jan '05? Without these spikes, last year's time frame that you are referencing would probably show a similar KIA reduction from fall to spring.
My point is, yes, there is a trend from Oct '04 to now that shows that "we are winning the war". But, unfortunately this trend is not so different than trends seen over the same time period last year or the year before. Just one transport helicopter crash or battle with entrenched insurgents is the difference in the curves. Thus, the reason to take averages is to minimize the skew of one event to a complete KIA trend.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart 3:46PM said: This is not "cherry picking two months." This is a steady decline in casualties over a 5 month period.
And this has what to do with the failure of the mission...
Not much. However, casualties are the only thing the anti war crowd has to claim that the war is some sort of failure. See Glenn's post itself as Exhibit 1.
or do you not remember what the mission objective was, Bucko?
The objectives were to remove the Baathist regime and install a representative government who was not in the WMD and terrorism business. They have all been accomplished.
The objectives of the enemy were to force the US to leave, stop the elections for the new government, stop the formation of a military to protect the government and to reclaim power for the Sunnis. They have failed on all counts. The Iraqi and foreign Sunnis do not have nearly enough power to achieve these goals in the future.
Thus, the Coalition has won the war decisively with very few losses.
What does this have to do with anything?
The drop in casualties, al Qaeda bombing attacks and other attacks on the infrastructure put the absolute lie to Glens claim that casualties are somehow out of control and are evidence of a lost war.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe objectives were to remove the Baathist regime and install a representative government who was not in the WMD and terrorism business. They have all been accomplished.
ReplyDeleteWho?
Very telling.
Another puppet government. You should keep talking. The rest of your dreams are very revealing. I'd expect better from a barrister.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you something productive and constructive? Write your own book. I'm sure it will be very instructive. Or don't you have one in you?
Halteclere said...
ReplyDeleteBart said: I am not comparing averages over quarters nor can I see a reason to do so. The KIA fell steadily every month after that peak until it hit 33 last month.
Yes, there has been a reduction of KIA every month since October. But for the past three years every spring saw a reduction of KIAs, therefore a trend downward isn't as significant.
Huh?
During the same periods in the prior two years, the casualty rates were higher and there was no consistent downward trend.
Between Oct 2003 to March 2004, KIA went up slightly from 47 to 52 with a spike to 110 in January.
Between Oct 2004 to March 2005, KIA went down slightly from 67 to 40 with two spikes of 141 in November for the 2d Battle of Fallujah and of 127 in January.
The recent five month steady drop in KIA is by far the longest sustained drop of the war and the KIA in March 2006 is the lowest since September 2003, before the major terrorist campaign started a couple months later.
For the months of Dec '05/'06, Feb '05/'06 and Mar'05/'06, KIA numbers are similar as a year ago (+/-3). Oct '04 actually had 1/3 less KIA than Oct '05. Dec '04 and Jan '05 had more KIA, with Dec '04 having the most KIA of any month of the war.
You are the one cherry picking individual months which have no relation to one another militarily. The fact is that casualties jumped up and down continuously until this recent sustained and significant decrease.
Bart: In October 2005, KIA was 99. This was the tail end of a series of US/Iraqi offensives through the Euphretes Valley up to the Syrian border.
I haven't followed the day-to-day action of this war. What were the offensives that led to such high KIA spikes in Dec '04 and Jan '05?
The spikes were in November 04 and January 05 with a lull in December. The Second Battle of Falujah where the Marines cleared the city was in November and January involved battles in Mosul and Bagdad with those who escaped Fallujah.
The series of offensives to which I referred started in May and ran through the fall of 2005. You will see a rise in May and a plateau of casualties in the 80s and 90s per month during that period.
yankeependragon says:
ReplyDeleteFocusing just on percentages of KIA or WIA betrays just how cheaply the commentator holds human life. The fact we're talking about his former brothers and sisters in uniform is even more telling. I, personally, I'm a tad disgusted.
Why? That is the measure of the war you folks have chosen to focus on. The left has systematically ignored every other measure of our time in Iraq, choosing to quote death tolls as the only real barometer. And you want to ignore better numbers now? How disingenuous.
Bart, you're doing great.
shooter242 - hmmmm...you missed this.
ReplyDeleteOur troll has distorted what Glenn has said in order to claim it is a lie. Glenn was not talking about U.S. casualties exclusively at all and to say he was is completely dishonest.
ReplyDeleteWhat Glenn said was, “Just the sheer quantity of killing on a daily basis.” He was talking about all casualties – in other words, he was considering Italians and Iraqis as human beings too, not just Americans.
The news reports of dead bodies showing up every day is sickening as this low-level war is heating up with death squads, militias run amok, and reprisals back and forth.
Now if you don’t want to consider Iraqis lives as worth counting, that’s your problem, but don’t distort what Glenn said. Please, we’re not stupid here. Tell it to Powerline.
I'll make a deal with you, Bart.
ReplyDeleteThe day that Wilson and Plame are indicted for... whatever crimes you wingers fantasize about... I'll believe that Chimpy finally accomplished something in Iraq, even if it's just totally fucking it all to hell. The day that Rover is indicted, you go away and write your book. Then we can pan it with snarky reviews that put your writing talents to shame over at Amazon. And you can come back and whine about it. I expect you will be starting that first draft very soon, Bucko.
:)
ej writes: shooter242 - hmmmm...you missed this.
ReplyDeleteThank you, saved me the trouble. Shooter, that's all been thrashed through here, as has the sheer audacity and poverty of Bush's legal theories.
This illegal, warrantless surveillance was the straw that broke for me; Bush is arrogating to himself the powers of a monarch. He has to be stopped. Please read all of the Compendium of NSA Arguments at Glenn's sidebar, the link ej gave you, and Glenn's book.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteOur troll has distorted what Glenn has said in order to claim it is a lie. Glenn was not talking about U.S. casualties exclusively at all and to say he was is completely dishonest.
I know, Zack. I think we all know that. Not knocking you buddy. I mean, why do we have to state and restate the obvious with these clowns. That's why I take Norman Mailer's advice as he remarked in his observations about the Chicago 7 (or 8) trial.
There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether the Chicago defendants intended to incite a riot in Chicago in 1968. Abbie Hoffman said, "I don't know whether I'm innocent or I'm guilty." The reason for the confusion--as Norman Mailer pointed out--was that the alleged conspirators "understood that you didn't have to attack the fortress anymore." All they had to do was "surround it, make faces at the people inside and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves."
I just laugh at them, make faces and poke them with a stick. It worked last time.
These are all DoD figures usually coming from coverage of the military press briefings.
ReplyDeleteHere's the month-by-month casualties. Dunno where HWSNBN gets his 60% down.
Cheers,
The KIA fell steadily every month after that peak until it hit 33 last month.
ReplyDeleteThis is not "cherry picking two months." This is a steady decline in casualties over a 5 month period.
That was then, this is now:
April '06: 67 U.S. KIA (thru 27 days)
Up 116% from March, and the month ain't even over yet. Yep, quite the trend there.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid there, troll.
Cheers,
Have you all heard the report just carried on Lou Dobbs about Iran/the UN/the US and North Korea and the nuclear enrichment issue?
ReplyDeleteUN Security Council has given Iran until tomorrow to stop all uranium enrichment. Iran has refused and is threatening to withdraw from a UN committee.
North Korea has delivered equipment to Iran.
Whatever is happening, it looks like some sort of showdown may be imminent.
What are people's thoughts on whether the fighters in Iran are "terrorist insurgents" who should be crushed or instead "resistance fighters" who are resisting foreign occupation?
Michelle Malkin is truly "damaged goods" in terms of being outside the arena of what could be characterized as normal psychology. She appears to be similar to some of the most dangerous tyrants in history in her derangement.
"Reaching" her mind at this point is probably impossible as she is not functioning as an even quasi-rational human being. She is lost to "hate" maybe because of traumatic events in her past. Something has to explain that type of blind, violent rage in a person.
It would be interesting for someone to write a book about her which attempts to explain how she got the way she is.
Finally, I believe that there is a certain group of our fellow citizens who have gotten "lost" in everything that has been happening lately.
Those are American black citizens many whose families were here from the very beginning. Nobody is more "American" than they are.
Nobody seems to care about them anymore, especially the Democrats.
It is heartbreaking if you really start looking into the facts and I intend to spend more time doing just that.
It's always disheartening to me how we throw our own over the railing when they no longer serve the interests of either party's purely partisan agendas.
I also intend to write about Rep. Cynthia McKinney, which was a very complex story to which nobody seemed to pay close attention.
The study conducted by War College's Strategic Studies Institute I referred to earlier is at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=637
The long and short of it was: the invasion of Iraq was all but doomed from the start, regardless of how many troops were used or what decisions were made by Bremer et al.
I also stand by all I've said earlier. As expected, Bart has remained silent and declines to defend himself or his outlook. Just as well really as there is *no* defense for it.
Oh, and shooter? I'm still waiting to hear at least one thing the Bush Administration deserves praise for that *isn't* a flaming, costly disaster for the country.
The vandalism event that fueled Malkin's outrage is particularly interesting given that just today we also see this post on Digby which relates the following charming anecdote about Republican politician George Allen:
ReplyDelete"It was the night before a major basketball game with Morningside High. The mostly black inner-city school adjacent to Watts was coming to the almost entirely white Palos Verdes High to play. When students arrived at school on game day, they found graffiti spray-painted on the school library and other places. All five people who described the incident say the graffiti was racially tinged and meant to look like the handiwork of the black Morningside students. But it was actually put there by Allen and some of his friends."
Sen. Russ Feingold
ReplyDeleteNow, six months later, without any kind of timetable or strategy, things in Iraq are only getting worse. There is no end in sight for U.S. troops who have been asked to sacrifice so much in the name of a deeply flawed policy. That is why today I introduced an amendment to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.
Never know who you’ll find blogging these days.
The neocons have decided it will be more economically efficient to burn bodies directly instead of sending our solders to the Middle East to exchange their blood for oil.
ReplyDeleteThe next great “breakthrough” will be a growing appreciation of the efficiencies that result from the burning of humans as fuel. This process allows the body's organic matter to directly contribute to the economic growth of society without the thousands of years that are needed to convert organic matter into oil reserves. The administration's current "blood-for-oil" policy will not sustain us.
The neocons are looking out for our well-being. The future is in burning the bodies of "undesirables" to allow the rest of us to prosper. Not only will there be benefits from harvesting the poor, infirmed, or elderly that result from the laws of thermo-science, the economic benefits and economies of scale that will result from consumption of humans for fuel add more value to the administrations policies.
Until people become useless to the ruling class, they participate in our economic system adding to the creation of wealth. When their economic usefulness no longer serves the needs of the ruling elite, we convert the surplus value of their labor into an energy commodity. The powerful interests that will benefit from this economically efficient production cannot be stopped - just consider it another example of "the-invisible hand" that guides our economy slapping you in the face.
hypatia says:
ReplyDelete"Thank you, saved me the trouble. Shooter, that's all been thrashed through here, as has the sheer audacity and poverty of Bush's legal theories."
All of which is the appeal of participating in a legally based blog. I am not one, by the way.
I've read the original cite and visited the links included, however the quote I put up originally still stands, and is buttressed by the other judges. But indeed, it is not the home run I had hoped for.
bart: Folks, this war is about won. General Pace announced in Iraq during the Rice and Rummy tour that we are going to start bringing the troops home.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had a chance to read all the comments, so someone probably caught this overstatement, akin the "Mission Accomplished" joke. Now, I wonder what you think Bart--you think your Faux News, OR the so-called Dem MSM have reported the following?
According to Juan Cole:
* Turkey denied charges that its troops had made an incursion into Iraq.
* Der Spiegel warns of a building "intifadah" or uprising among Turkish Kurds in eastern Anatolia.
* Cole also notes that the US General Accounting Office says that insurgent violence is in 7-8 Iraq provices, contrary to the 4 cited by the Bush admin. It should also be noted that these 7-8 are the most populous in Iraq.
* Cole has also noted the ominous movement of Shiite militiamen from the south into the northern areas dominated by Kurds. Do I need to spell out why this is not a good sign?
* I believe that it's also Cole who notes that PM-elect Maliki is facing something of an almost impossible situation when Maliki says that the militias must be integrated into the "Iraqi" police and military forces.
One more bit of Bart's misinformation: while it's true that the US casualties are down, civilian casualties are up. These are also probably under-reported, since the Iraqi morgues have been given strict orders not to speak to the US press. In fact, just a month or two ago, the Baghdad morgue director had to leave the country because government officials were threatening his life.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteOur troll has distorted what Glenn has said in order to claim it is a lie. Glenn was not talking about U.S. casualties exclusively at all and to say he was is completely dishonest.
What Glenn said was, “Just the sheer quantity of killing on a daily basis.” He was talking about all casualties – in other words, he was considering Italians and Iraqis as human beings too, not just Americans.
Iraqi civilian casualties have gone down as well. The vast majority died in al Qaeda's mass murder suicide bombing campaign. You used to hear about 3-4 of these suicide bombings in markets, mosques and funerals butchering dozens of Iraqi civilians in al Qaeda's failed attempt to start a civil war between the Shia and Sunni. Because of concerted Iraq and US offensives to clean out al Qaeda and because the Sunni have started to turn on al Qaeda, those bombings went down by around 60% as I cited before.
This terrorist murder = defeat paradigm Glenn and you other anti war advocates are using simply does not work. The Iraqis have never wavered in their support for their elected government even in the face of this mass murder. Why should we abandon them when they are the ones dying?
yankeependragon says:
ReplyDeleteOh, and shooter? I'm still waiting to hear at least one thing the Bush Administration deserves praise for that *isn't* a flaming, costly disaster for the country.
By whose standards? You've already declared Bush has done nothing worthwhile. Are you not secure in your own evaluation? Or are you just looking for a fight?
My own personal favorite is the tax cut. Everybody that pays income taxes got one. It's a beautiful thing.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI'll make a deal with you, Bart.
The day that Wilson and Plame are indicted for... whatever crimes you wingers fantasize about... I'll believe that Chimpy finally accomplished something in Iraq, even if it's just totally fucking it all to hell.
Exactly what crimes have Wilson and Plame guilty of? Wilson lies like a rug, but so long as he doesn't do it under oath it is not a crime. Plame just had the bad judgment of marrying the liar.
The day that Rover is indicted, you go away and write your book.
That is about as likely as Wilson or Plame being indicted.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteThese are all DoD figures usually coming from coverage of the military press briefings.
Here's the month-by-month casualties. Dunno where HWSNBN gets his 60% down.
I rounded down. The drop from 99 to 33 is actually 66%.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteThe KIA fell steadily every month after that peak until it hit 33 last month.
This is not "cherry picking two months." This is a steady decline in casualties over a 5 month period.
That was then, this is now:
April '06: 67 U.S. KIA (thru 27 days)
That is true. The enemy got luck and took down a packed vehicle and a chopper early in the month.
That is still down by a third from October and we'll see if it keeps up. The US troops simply are not doing as much fighting as the Iraqis take over, so there are less chances to take casualties.
poor Bart, still wetting the bed
ReplyDeleteBush-Nero's place in history will be somewhere between Buchanan and Harding
Bart, is THIS a sign of the success in Iraq you're talking about?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14435662.htm
Iraqis faking their IDs to hide religious affiliations
BAGHDAD, Iraq - On paper at least, Omar al-Dulaimi no longer exists.
With names that belong almost exclusively to Sunni Muslims in Iraq, al-Dulaimi feared that Shiite Muslims would single him out at one of the 12 checkpoints he crosses between home and work. So last week he bribed a government worker with $25 to change his name on his official paperwork.
"My biggest fear is militias. They move freely. They kill freely. They check your ID, and based on your name or surname they might kill you," said al-Dulaimi, 27, a merchant from Salman Pak who didn't want to reveal his new, more Shiite-sounding name, for obvious reasons.
In a country defined by religious and ethnic tensions, especially after the Feb. 22 bombing of the revered Shiite Askariya mosque in the mostly Sunni city of Samarra, al-Dulaimi has joined a growing number of Iraqis who think that changing their names is about survival.
Tell you what Bart
When you're willing to go unarmed outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, then maybe you'll have something factual to add about "Victory" in Iraq
Same goes for Condi, Rumsfeld, Pace or anyone else claiming things are going just jimdandy in Iraq
Tin Foil Hat On
ReplyDeletespecters announcement comes on the heels of the judges ruling in the wiretapping xase against the government .maybe specter forsees the writing on the wall and figures now is finally time to expose it?
i am not a lawyer but i did find it ironic and possible
-:)
br3n
From shooter242 at 9:23PM:
ReplyDelete"By whose standards? You've already declared Bush has done nothing worthwhile. Are you not secure in your own evaluation? Or are you just looking for a fight?"
I'm simply asking you to provide some example of *anything* done by the Bush Administration that, in your personal estimation, was worthwhile and praiseworthy. I am looking to engage you in a hopefully intelligent and respectful (though gods know you're already trying my patience) exchange of ideas and opinions.
"My own personal favorite is the tax cut. Everybody that pays income taxes got one. It's a beautiful thing."
Okay, there, that's a start. Not a great one, but its a decent try.
Unfortunately, the tax cuts (plural) have proven a poisonous move. Not only were they originally designed so the majority of the benefit was enjoyed by the upper 10% of incomes (translating into barely 1% of the overall population), but the continued rounds of tax cuts have systematically reduced federal income at a time of greatly expanded federal outlays.
Atop this, the Administration's bizzare economic policies have exacerbated the stagnation of the national economy and worker's wages. All while local and State taxes have had to either remain steady or actually increase to make up for the federal shortfalls.
This translates into a situation (admittedly not entirely the fault of the Administration, although they are far from blameless) where workers are see less of their paychecks available to them, there is increasingly less mobility within the economy itself, and the federal government's capacity to either moderate or minimize the effects of a downturn/outright recession on the workforce have been severely constrained.
Add to this the ongoing costs of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the money already lost in the reconstruction, the literally billions that are required to finance the T Bonds our current deficit is being financed by...
You get the idea, yes? The central point, one that's I've tried to stress, is that any policy formulated and enacted by this or any other Administration can't be looked at in a vacuum or in isolation by itself. Unless you're prepared to defend the consequences of said policy, don't step up with any illusions you won't be knocked down.
Any response?
Actually shooter, not everyone received a tax cut. In fact I have a nice little placard signed by George W. Bush informing me that I don't make enough money to receive a tax refund.
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteThe study conducted by War College's Strategic Studies Institute I referred to earlier is at
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=637
This is the opinion of two civilian academics, not that of the military.
I also stand by all I've said earlier. As expected, Bart has remained silent and declines to defend himself or his outlook. Just as well really as there is *no* defense for it.
:::chuckle:::
When have I ever declined to defend my viewpoints forcefully and frequently? In fact, I am frequently accused of "taking over" this blog.
The long and short of it was: the invasion of Iraq was all but doomed from the start, regardless of how many troops were used or what decisions were made by Bremer et al.
In a nutshell, these civilians dismantle almost all the anti war claims against the Bush Administration about inadequate troops and planning and substitute their own problems claiming that it is impossible to keep the three groups in this society from going to war. This is a particularly amusing view as the Iraqis are within a week or two for forming a unity government and the terrorists murdered the sister of a fellow Sunni who called for the largely Shia and Kurd Army to crush the Sunni insurgency.
Actually, I agree somewhat with the dissenting generals and disagree with this study on one point. The US should have committed another division for the war against the insurgents as a purely offensive forces to clean out the terrorist centers.
I do agree with the authors somewhat in that I do not believe that there was any way to plan for this coordinated post war terror campaign and crime wave.
The recently translated Iraqi documents demonstrate that Saddam trained about 8000 Iraqi and foreign jihidi including al Qaeda terrorists starting in 1998 when he kicked out the inspectors. There are documents discussing the testing and development of IEDs back in 1998-99.
Saddam also emptied the prisons as the regime was falling.
Saddam planned this terror campaign on the mistaken assumption that Bush would cut and run after a few months and the Baathists could take over again.
Unfortunately for Saddam, Bush ignored the anti war left and the Euros and stayed.
Bush correctly dismantled the Sunni's only source of power and possibility of a coup against the new government - the Baathist military. Instead, the military reflects the population and is primarily Shia and Kurd.
Then, the military found and captured Saddam, who is now being brought to justice for war crimes.
Saddam has managed to murder hundreds of civilians in this campaign, but the campaign failed in all its goals.
I also strongly disagree with the idea that Iraq's three groups are irreconcilable. There is an incredible amount of intermarriage between the Sunni and Shia and the Kurds are happy just to be left alone.
Almost all of this so called internecine violence is actually a calculated campaign to start a civil war by murdering Shia. However, the Shia were amazingly patient and stuck with the elected government and the new Iraqi Army. Now it is the Sunni who are terrified that if we leave too soon the new Iraqi military made up of the Sunni's old victims will wreak terrible vengeance. THAT is why they have joined the unity government after the boycott backfired.
I do not see how these civilians can claim that it is impossible for the Iraqis to form a representative government when they are doing it right now.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteShorter HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete"I'm full'o's**** and I've been called on it.... Waugh-waughh-waaaauuuuggggg...."
Cheers,
A fascinating study of Bush in terms of dramatic theory:
ReplyDeleteFrom where does Bush's tragic flaw derive?
Origin of the Disease
In almost any area of governance you can think of, George W. Bush is ridden with the fault-lines of his tragic flaws -- and may have borrowed some from earlier leaders.
Bush is so bereft of self-esteem (much of it derived from his upbringing, by constant humiliation by his parents, by a string of personal and business failures, by his inability to admit error and tell the truth), that he can't help himself from over-compensating by displaying a persona of cockiness and belligerent authority. In short, the bully syndrome: deficient on the inside, aggressive on the outside. Bush, let us remember, delighted in blowing up frogs with explosives as a child. [NOTE: Does anyone know the source of this assertion?]
Incompetent by nature and practice, Bush surrounds himself with yes-men and those who likewise are boastful bumblers. Basically ignorant, dogmatic and intellectually incurious, Bush easily is manipulated and swayed by those few insiders he trusts; namely, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the architects of his political ideology and modus operandi.
One can sense that the American people during the past year or so figured out that Bush and his crew are in way over their heads when it comes to intelligent leadership -- witness the debacle that is Iraq, the post-Katrina-disaster federal "assistance" they thoroughly botched in New Orleans, the economy which has put future generations trillions of dollars in hock, the Medicare and Social Security messes, Plamegate, domestic spying, torture, etc., etc.
When Bush uncorks another of his deficient media performances these days, a majority of the American people simply don't pay much attention anymore to what he says, since they know it bears only the slightest connection either to what he is doing or to the activities of Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld behind the curtain.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteMy own personal favorite is the tax cut. Everybody that pays income taxes got one. It's a beautiful thing.
Well over half to the richest 10%, and much of that to the top 1%. Shooter, from the sounds of things here, probably didn't see a dime of it, but is under the strange delusion that he'll get "his" someday ... and he'll need an umbrella when the pigs are out and about.
Meanwhile, the debt is $8.364 trillion and counting, and the Clinton surpluses have turned into deficits as far as the eye can see ... but Shooter don't mind because no woman will let him near them so he won't have to worry about his children paying for the parties of Lay, Abramoff, Koslowski, et al.....
Yep, that's a real winner, Shooter.
Cheers,
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteArne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteshooter242: My own personal favorite is the tax cut. Everybody that pays income taxes got one. It's a beautiful thing.
Well over half to the richest 10%, and much of that to the top 1%.
Given that these groups bear even an even higher share of the tax burden, exactly why is this wrong?
BTW, the folks who received the most tax relief as a percentage of their income were middle class married people with children.
Meanwhile, the debt is $8.364 trillion and counting, and the Clinton surpluses have turned into deficits as far as the eye can see ...
1) The surpluses at the end of the 90s arose after Clinton signed off on the Gingrich balanced budget plan, which cut taxes and the growth of entitlement spending.
2) Federal revenues soared after the 2003 tax rate cuts. In fact, the increase in federal revenues since the 2003 rate cuts is the fastest since the growth following the Reagan 1981 tax reforms.
3) The deficit is entirely from overspending. I would be glad to discuss spending cuts with you.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteIt looks likw we've passed the 20K mark. I think it's much higher, it's hard to know because all these numbers are just so confusing, yanno?
20,000 Bart... WIA.
But freedumbness is on da march! And you sure have stocked up.
"Something remarkable and disturbing is happening in this case and in others across the country" challenging the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans, wrote the lawyers in the case in Oregon challenging NSA surveillance of domestic attorney-client phone calls. "The executive branch of our federal government, disregarding the admonition that '[d]emocracies die behind closed doors,' is attempting to draw a veil of secrecy over judicial proceedings to determine whether the warrantless eavesdropping program, itself kept secret for years, is unlawful."
ReplyDeleteand
It's not surprising that the government is attempting to utilize secret court proceedings: they are the next best thing to having no courts at all.
- From Shayana Kadidal in his informative update on the court challenges to the NSA's illegal spying:
Secret Court Proceedings
The Executive Branch got themselves a nice, legal secret court courtesy of FISA, starting in 1978... Predictably, that wasn't 'good enough' for them in the end. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
From Bat at 9:55PM:
ReplyDelete"This is the opinion of two civilian academics, not that of the military."
I never claimed it was the informed opinion of the military itself, merely that this report originates from the War College.
"When have I ever declined to defend my viewpoints forcefully and frequently? In fact, I am frequently accused of "taking over" this blog."
And your defense is...what? Never mind. We clearly aren't speaking the same language.
"I do agree with the authors somewhat in that I do not believe that there was any way to plan for this coordinated post war terror campaign and crime wave."
I believe they pointed out there was no planning *period* for the aftermath of the invasion. More accurately, there was no serious planning either postulated or offered that took into account the history of the country, the ethnic make-up of the region, nor the historic rivalries and tribal culture that dominate it.
The various points you raise range from old boilerplate talking points to unverified claims about what this magical 'document dump' reveals to abject hero worship of your idol from Houston. Interviews with Hussein and his generals since their capture have put paid to most of this stuff about having 'trained jihadists' ready, and there is no evidence any of them are coordinating anything presently.
Your earnest efforts to play down the sectarian nature of the violence is, well, amusing but unconvincing, particularly not in light of current events.
Bart closes with:
"I do not see how these civilians can claim that it is impossible for the Iraqis to form a representative government when they are doing it right now."
This would be the same government that hasn't actually accomplished anything, has been stalled from even convening for weeks on end due to the same ethnic issues you dismissed earlier, and whose formation was essentially orchestrated by the US in an election there is still lingering questions over, correct?
I really wouldn't hang my hat on that, not the way things are going.
If you really want to continue, in light of everything, to insist that everything is going well in Iraq, go right ahead. But don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.
Just a further aside to Bart's statistical obfuscations...
ReplyDelete1) We have no idea what kind of ops are being conducted at this time. Things are so bad, we can assume that there may be fewer patrols and recons, and only in safer zones... this would lead to fewer KIAs. Whatever he says, (or this maladministration) we all know enough to discount out of hand... Fool me once... you won't get fooled again!
2) And this is a big one. Many of what would be KIAs are WIAs because of advances in battlefield triage and a few other factors we don't need to go into... in any case, while Bart downplays this futile carnage for political gain,we are all glad it's not as bad as it could be, given the fact we have total morons in charge.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI agree these people cannot be ignored, but to criticize, without the constant repetition that this is a business model, plays right into their hands. These people are professional dunking booth clowns. These people are professional trolls. The more people they piss off, the more money they make. Partisans are easier to troll than MAC users.
Their followers participate in this game because it pisses off their enemies, any message is secondary at best. Which is why it is so easy to attack their shifting positions and inconsistencies. It is all about the cash money.
I would be careful trying to attach these people to anyone but themselves. This business model works just as well on the other side of the fence and I would hate to have have to defend myself against the default association of professional trolls. Unless of course, I was getting fitted for really big shoes.
From Bart at 10:43PM:
ReplyDelete"Given that these groups bear even an even higher share of the tax burden, exactly why is this wrong?"
The better question is "Did they need a tax cut in the first place?"
"BTW, the folks who received the most tax relief as a percentage of their income were middle class married people with children."
What little 'relief' this sliver of the population enjoyed was promptly eaten by local and State taxes, which had to make up for the Federal shortfall. I speak from experience here.
Bart's three reasons for the surpluses the Clinton Administration generated:
"1) The surpluses at the end of the 90s arose after Clinton signed off on the Gingrich balanced budget plan, which cut taxes and the growth of entitlement spending."
Gingrich I believe was out of the job by that time. The 'tax cuts' you're referring to were targeted at middle income brackets while a broader taxation on wealth was used to make up for the losses. Finally, entitlement spending was curbed, but mainly because qualifications were tightened ever so slightly. There was also a surge in the stock market generally and a minor tech boom that spurred economic growth that coincided with all this.
"2) Federal revenues soared after the 2003 tax rate cuts. In fact, the increase in federal revenues since the 2003 rate cuts is the fastest since the growth following the Reagan 1981 tax reforms."
Federal income enjoyed a *brief* upswing, but only because of corporate taxes, not because the economy was expanding. The real-world indicators of job creation and wages show the most anemic stagnation this side of the 1930s.
"3) The deficit is entirely from overspending. I would be glad to discuss spending cuts with you."
Oh, let's. Let's talk about leaving tens of millions more of Americans without even the most basic health insurance (ie Medicare and Medicaid), or cutting off The Greatest Generation's Social Security Benefits, or completely ending federal assistance to college students and thus make higher education unattainable for millions more of the coming generation.
Yes, Bart, let's have *that* conversation.
A sister of Iraq’s new Sunni Arab vice president was killed Thursday in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad, a day after the politician called for the Sunni-dominated insurgency to be crushed by force.
ReplyDeleteIf someone would take the time, could he explain the following to me. I am not making a point, but asking a question:
We have been told that there is sectarian violence going on in Iraq, that many there believe in an Isalmofascist type of religion which is fundamentalist and advovates vengeance, and that Saddam, leaving everything else aside, held things together in a certain way because of his brutal but secular dictatorship, but when he was removed the various sects, driven primarily by their religious antagonisms, started warfare against each other. Right?
I cannot understand why a Sunni politician would "call for the Sunni-dominated insurgency to be crushed by force when we have been told that it is the passion driven sectarian religious warfare that is causing most of the present violence.
Why would a true fundamentalist Sunni call for the murder of other Sunnis?
Also: can anyone here spare 18 dollars or are you all too poor?
Buying a share of JetBlue for $10 and adding about $8 dollars for an online trade is above your means?
If Jet Blue goes up and you keep that share long enough to qualify for long term capital gains, then the tax cuts which have to do with the tax rates on dividends and capital gains would benefit you.
Only the top one percent in this country has $18 to invest?
Every single person who invests in mutual funds is one of the top one percent?
Amazing.
Lastly, if bart is right and we are winning the war in Iraq and will be withdrawing troops and winding down, this to me would suggest the following:
That would be that the US Government has done enough cozy deal$ with the Iraqi leaders who head up the new "government" that those leaders have agreed to establish a total and brutal dictatorship there which will use death squads posing as an army (and representing democractically elected "regime change")to brutally crush any dissent and resort to tactics so heinous against the Iraqi people themselves that what the Generals did in South America will look like child's play.
That's because it appears there sure are a lot of people fighting there who are not " terrorist insurgents" but rather are "resistance fighters" who don't want a foreign country invading them and taking over control of their oil and other assets.
Arne, do you think your attacking other posters instead of their arguments or positions gives your own arguments more credibility, or less?
Finally, cynic, do you think most people in this country know a lot about the history of Turkey?
Does anyone on this blog?
Talking with wingers like Bart or Shooter - or EWO (about almost anything except Bush) particularly about the capitalist form of government [sic]:
ReplyDeleteThe Dead Parrot Sketch
Monty Python
The Pet Shoppe
A customer enters a pet shop.
Customer: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The owner does not respond.)
C: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
C: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
O: We're closin' for lunch.
C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
C: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
C: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
C: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
(shouting at the cage)
'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)
O: There, he moved!
C: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
O: I never!!
C: Yes, you did!
O: I never, never did anything...
C: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!!
Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
C: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.
O: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
C: STUNNED?!?
O: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
C: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
O: The Norwegian Blue prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.
(pause)
O: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
C: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
O: No no! 'E's pining!
C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
(pause)
O: Well, I'd better replace it, then.
(he takes a quick peek behind the counter)
O: Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.
C: I see. I see, I get the picture.
O: I got a slug.
(pause)
C: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does it talk?
O: Nnnnot really.
C: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
O: Look, if you go to my brother's pet shop in Bolton, he'll replace the parrot for you.
C: Bolton, eh? Very well.
The customer leaves.
The customer enters the same pet shop. The owner is putting on a false moustache.
C: This is Bolton, is it?
O: (with a fake mustache) No, it's Ipswitch.
C: (looking at the camera) That's inter-city rail for you.
The customer goes to the train station.
He addresses a man standing behind a desk marked "Complaints".
C: I wish to complain, British-Railways Person.
Attendant: I DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS JOB, YOU KNOW!!!
C: I beg your pardon...?
A: I'm a qualified brain surgeon! I only do this job because I like being my own boss!
C: Excuse me, this is irrelevant, isn't it?
A: Yeah, well it's not easy to pad these python files out to 200 lines, you know.
C: Well, I wish to complain. I got on the Bolton train and found myself deposited here in Ipswitch.
A: No, this is Bolton.
C: (to the camera) The pet shop man's brother was lying!!
A: Can't blame British Rail for that.
C: In that case, I shall return to the pet shop!
He does.
C: I understand this IS Bolton.
O: (still with the fake mustache) Yes?
C: You told me it was Ipswitch!
O: ...It was a pun.
C: (pause) A PUN?!?
O: No, no...not a pun...What's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards?
C: (Long pause) A palindrome...?
O: Yeah, that's it!
C: It's not a palindrome! The palindrome of "Bolton" would be "Notlob"!! It don't work!!
O: Well, what do you want?
C: I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!
Sergeant-Major: Quite agree, quite agree, too silly, far too silly...
Turkey Masses Troops
ReplyDeleteon Iraqi Border
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 10:43PM: "Given that these groups bear even an even higher share of the tax burden, exactly why is this wrong?"
The better question is "Did they need a tax cut in the first place?"
Ummm... Because its their money not yours.
One of the easiest ways to tell a difference between and Elephant and a Donkey is how they refer to tax cuts.
An Elephant will talk about the government returning your money.
A Donkey will ask why the government should give its money to you.
"BTW, the folks who received the most tax relief as a percentage of their income were middle class married people with children."
What little 'relief' this sliver of the population enjoyed was promptly eaten by local and State taxes, which had to make up for the Federal shortfall. I speak from experience here.
What blue people's republik do you live in? NY?
The fact that your state representatives are ripping you off does not argue against relieving your federal tax burden. Rather, it is grounds to fire your State reps in the next elections.
Imagine how much more your tax burden would be if the Feds were still looting your income at the old rates as well.
Bart's three reasons for the surpluses the Clinton Administration generated:
"1) The surpluses at the end of the 90s arose after Clinton signed off on the Gingrich balanced budget plan, which cut taxes and the growth of entitlement spending."
Gingrich I believe was out of the job by that time. The 'tax cuts' you're referring to were targeted at middle income brackets while a broader taxation on wealth was used to make up for the losses.
After lying to his base about opposing the balanced budget plan to get reelected in 1996, Clinton signed off on the Gingrich plan in 1997. The surpluses flowed soon thereafter.
Finally, entitlement spending was curbed, but mainly because qualifications were tightened ever so slightly.
That's all it takes. The US economy has been booming with a couple very brief slowdowns in 1991 and 2001 since the Reagan tax reforms on 1981. However, the government has been spending even faster. Slow down the growth (not cut) entitlements and the budget balances.
There was also a surge in the stock market generally and a minor tech boom that spurred economic growth that coincided with all this.
The markets took off after the 1994 elections in anticipation of actual reform. They would do so again now if any of the Elephants in power had the guts to duplicate the Gingrich reforms.
Bart: "2) Federal revenues soared after the 2003 tax rate cuts. In fact, the increase in federal revenues since the 2003 rate cuts is the fastest since the growth following the Reagan 1981 tax reforms."
Federal income enjoyed a *brief* upswing, but only because of corporate taxes, not because the economy was expanding. The real-world indicators of job creation and wages show the most anemic stagnation this side of the 1930s.
Sorry, you are flat wrong. Revenues across the board have increased starting in the Summer of 2003 when the tax rate cuts went into effect. Unemployment plunged and income tax revenues cranked up. Corporate income taxes also soared with the growth in GDP and profits. Check the IRS and other government budget sites.
"3) The deficit is entirely from overspending. I would be glad to discuss spending cuts with you."
Oh, let's. Let's talk about leaving tens of millions more of Americans without even the most basic health insurance (ie Medicare and Medicaid), or cutting off The Greatest Generation's Social Security Benefits, or completely ending federal assistance to college students and thus make higher education unattainable for millions more of the coming generation.
:::yawn:::
Slow the growth of entitlements by 1-2% as Gingrich did and you balance the budget in a couple years. Grandma will not be thrown on the street or any of the other horror shows you Donkey try to scare people with. Ask Bill Clinton in one of his few honest moments.
The Dead Parrot Sketch. A definite Classic.
ReplyDeleteBart, please, for the sake of what little creditability you have left...emulate the dead avian.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 11:50PM:
ReplyDelete"Slow the growth of entitlements by 1-2% as Gingrich did and you balance the budget in a couple years. Grandma will not be thrown on the street or any of the other horror shows you Donkey try to scare people with. Ask Bill Clinton in one of his few honest moments."
Nothing so eggregous, I grant you. Those days have passed.
Instead we're seeing a sizable portion of our population go completely without health coverage, defund the mass investments in education and research that gave the US such an edge a generation ago, and precipitating a savings crisis that promises only to get worse.
I'm leaving the rest of your response alone simply because its too silly to bother with. "The Gumby Brothers" from Monty Python were more coherent.
ej said,
ReplyDeleteBut the images Malkin posted are photoshop jobs - very easy to confirm when you blow them up.
Great catch! Frickin hilarious.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteeyes wide open: Finally, cynic, do you think most people in this country know a lot about the history of Turkey?
ReplyDeleteNo. ... But it is an important ally to the US. Its secular arrangement with Islam is supposed to be a model for other majority Islamic societies.
That it is, according to the report I quoted from Cole, sending troops to the border with northernIraq, aka Kurdistan, is cause for concern because the Turks have a large Kurdish minority. If that minority in Turkey decides to link up with the one in Iraq, it would be a source of major conflict for the US.
OTOH, you might be referring to the Turkish gemocide of Armenians early in the 20th century? ...
As to Bart... we are not winning this war. Why do you think the US is building huge bases in the country? It's because the war will not be over for at least 10 years. Jimmy Carter says to expect the US to be in Iraq for 50 years.
anon at 11:34:
ReplyDeleteTalking with wingers like Bart or Shooter - or EWO (about almost anything except Bush) particularly about the capitalist form of government.
You have a keen eye for the obvious, which is why you so consistently deliberately avoid anything obvious in your posts. Not clever enough by half.
Shooter happens to be bart, for those who don't know (and may possibly be the above "anon") and if I am a "winger", then Mother Teresa was Ghenghis Khan.
Tip: Try harder. Avoid transparency in your next phony "guise".
yankeependragon: Focusing just on percentages of KIA or WIA betrays just how cheaply the commentator holds human life. The fact we're talking about his former brothers and sisters in uniform is even more telling. I, personally, I'm a tad disgusted.
ReplyDeleteIf the number of casualties had no bearing on the success or failure of this war, then I would heartily agree with you. But since both sides have chosen to use the number of casualties per month as a metric and a rallying flag, it has unfortunately become necessary to treat casualties as statistics for trend analysis.
Halteclere: For the months of Dec '05/'06, Feb '05/'06 and Mar'05/'06, KIA numbers are similar as a year ago (+/-3). Oct '04 actually had 1/3 less KIA than Oct '05. Dec '04 and Jan '05 had more KIA, with Dec '04 having the most KIA of any month of the war.
Bart: You are the one cherry picking individual months which have no relation to one another militarily. The fact is that casualties jumped up and down continuously until this recent sustained and significant decrease.
Comparing Oct04 to Oct05, Nov04 to Nov05, Dec04 to Dec05, Jan05 to Jan06, Feb05 to Feb06, and Mar05 to Mar06 is not "cherry picking". Like I said in an earlier post, there definitely is a monthly reduction trend of KIA since October. But for the past three years there has been a similar average drop in KIA in the 1QTR of each year as compared to the 4QTR of the previous year.
If a fool were to compare new home starts month-to-month from August to December, they would discover that the housing market is crashing (the fact that very few houses are started in the winter wouldn’t be apparent). But a comparison of the same month between successive years will help identify a market trend that would otherwise be hidden.
To get the best idea of a trend, take into account both the month-to-month variances and historical variances. Yea, war is unpredictable and ever-changing, but yearly events such as seasons, holidays (Ramadan for example) etc. are repetitive and must be accounted for.
Arne Langsetmo said: April '06: 67 U.S. KIA (thru 27 days)
If this is such then my hypothesis of a reoccurring pattern of casualty reduction in 1QTR of each year has been strengthened. Apr 05 saw a 49% KIA increase over Mar 05. And this month has seen at least a 116% KIA increase over last month.
We will know in a month or two, but, unfortunately, Bart's monthly KIA curve doesn’t look to be as strait or as negative as he would like.
Bart...
ReplyDeleteUmmm... Because its their money not yours.
Yes, it is the gubmints money, as you well know, but that's bedides the point. I actually happen to agree with you. I'm against taxing income earned in exchange for labor, just like William F. Buckley, Jr...
Henry George said that the rent of all land ought to be public. ...I am sympathetic with that particular analysis. [on Firing Line, PBS, January 6, 1980]
[an interview with Brian Lamb, C-Span Book Notes, April 2-3, 2000]
CALLER: Mr. Buckley, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
William F. Buckley, Jr.(WFB): Thank You.
CALLER: I've heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven't heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I'm wondering why that is the case.
W.F.B.: It's mostly because I'm beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I'm talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn't encourage land speculation.
Anyway I've run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax...
B.L.: (Quoting the book) "The first time I met William F. Buckley, we were both members of a televised panel discussing word. The moderator introduced me with a pop-quiz to test my credentials asked me to define the word..." Is it USUFRUCT?
W.F.B.: Usufruct, yeah.
B.L. (Quoting the book) "I felt smug as I recite the right to enjoy another's property as long as you don't damage it. Then Mr. Buckley leaned into his microphone and quoted an entire paragraph on usufruct from the political economist, Henry George.
W.F.B.: Oh for heaven's sake!
B.L.: And this little book has..
W.F.B.: The land belongs to those in usufruct.
EWO says... and if I am a "winger", then Mother Teresa was Ghenghis Khan.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Christopher Hitchens, she almost was, but then Hitch thinks Bush is "teh cool".
Bart said...Hardly. You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare. Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism are attacks against the population for the purpose of generating enough fear to cause the population to submit.
However, terrorism has never conquered a country. It doesn't eliminate the government forces or take territory. It is simply one long war crime against the civilian population.
"Terrorism" however it is defined, and no one agrees on that, has been a most effective tool or weapon in the tool box of warfare and conflict, and has helped to conquer many a country throughout history, Bart. And you know that as well as the rest of us. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't teach it at what used to be called the SOA at Ft. Benning and other places. The only single tool in that box that might achieve this goal is probably the nuke, but you might not have much to show for it.
I don't know what you are talking about here because I suspect that neither do you.
"You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare. Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country."
This sounds like your counter- insurgency training talking... or do you have an example of this definition of "classic" LIC?
US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
General Sir Frank Kitson only coined the term in the late 60s.
bart said...
ReplyDeleteFirst Bart said:
"In southern Iraq, a bomb hit an Italian military convoy, killing four soldiers — three Italians and a Romanian — and seriously injuring another passenger, officials in Rome said. The bomb struck the convoy near an Italian military base in Nasiriyah, a heavily Shiite city 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, said local Iraqi government spokesman Haidr Radhi."
Then he said:
In Iraq, the Baathist terrorists have the support of some portion of the 20% of the population which is Sunni. It can project force only in its Sunni Triangle. It controls no large sections of territory."
The object of an insurgency is not to control territory, never has been , never will. But it sure looks like they are able to engage in operations outside the Sunni Triangle according to your own post.
Here's a paper from Parameters, 2004, Bart. Maybe I'm missing something...
ReplyDeleteBut your definiton of terrorism is just one of many and a rather simplistic one at that, and hardly vertfrei so it's value as term of academic inquiry is questionable. By your definition, Vonnegut is correct in calling the fire bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Bart does say things he later regrets... often. It's the desperation as their worldview collapse all around them. The pressure cause mistakes, and Bart is knowledgeable enough to know he is fighting a delaying action and engaged in a retrogade motion. I happen to like his definition of terrorism, as overly simplistic as it is. I don't think the U.S. gov. wants to see it codified as such.
ReplyDeleteFrom UNODC. I'm not sure if the US signed off on these... I doubt it. Not this admin.
ReplyDeleteDefinitions of Terrorism
Conventions
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Hey Bart- While you and your pinheaded Elephant oilman buddies are busy establishing democracy and cornering the oil in Iraq at a cost to the American taxpayer of 10 billion a month, Hu Jintao is quietly making deals with all the other oil producing countries. For some reason the folks in Africa, Central Asia, Indonesia and South America would rather deal with the Chinese than us. If the Mideast does blowup, like maybe when we attack Iran, they'll be set... but we'll still have those millions of barrels of ANWAR crude to run our Hummers. And on top of that we got rid of evil Saddam the bogeyman!
ReplyDeleteMost people are not really interested in "truth." Why should they be? In their personal lives they are largely hypocritical. Truth would be disruptive to how they lead their lives, so they not only have little reason to seek out truth but actually have an investment in avoiding it.
ReplyDeleteThe rare people whose philosophy or disposition inclines them to have no interest in "controlling" others, either in their personal lives or through politics, can "afford" to seek out truth. It poses no threat to either their political views or their personal lives.
Naturally such people also do not want others, including Government, to control them so it is they who pose a threat to all the people whose inclination is to want to control others, either on a family, personal, or work level or through the systems of Government they endorse.
Bart is bart, often wrong, putting forth an agenda, twisting facts and logic to do so and his tactics are pretty much visible. For those reasons, he comes in for much deserved criticism.
But when he writes something which is true or he provides facts which cannot factually be refuted by anyone impartial who bothers to check them out, some posters on this blog dismiss those posts just as readily as they dismiss the posts of his which are clearly duplicitous or false.
And I am not talking about the phenomena of whether or not a person happens to also have the same view as Bart on any particular given topic.
I am talking about denying certain things he writes a priori (even if the things he writes are factual and support his argument) just because his general view of things has been rejected.
That happens a lot around here but note that Glenn himself doesn't. A perfect example is how Glenn points out that there is every reason to distrust Arlen Specter's real intentions based on his record because he so frequently takes a position and then backs down and retreats.
But Glenn's main focus is on the merits of Arlen Specter's recent statements and actions and the fact that Arlen Specter now speaking about those issues is a good thing.
As blindly delusional and bordering on insanity as are most strident remaining die-hard BushCo Policy supporters, I fail to see how they are all that much less rational than those far left thinkers who refuse to acquaint themselves with actual basic economic data solely because the actual facts conflict with their political agendas.
True, it's valid to not look to people who are usually wrong as a source. But even a clock is right twice a day. No point saying if the clock shows twelve and it actually is twelve that it can't be twelve because that clock is usually wrong.
I don't think it's a good thing that some posters here try to "sneak" in a whole litany of issues to try to get certain political and economic positions discredited as part of a "package deal."
I keep writing about laissez- faire Capitalism only because so many others are always trying to throw the Capitalism Baby in with the Dictatorship Wash.
If they would desist, so would I, and we can focus on Glenn's main issues and things which relate directly to those.
PS. That "Whatever" video linked to above really is really hysterical.
I thought constant said W stands for Wiretap but it turns out it stands for Whatever :)
True, it's valid to not look to people who are usually wrong as a source. But even a clock is right twice a day. No point saying if the clock shows twelve and it actually is twelve that it can't be twelve because that clock is usually wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we put that stopped clock on plane and flew it around the earth at just the right speed continually, it would be right all day long. And I could manipulate and massage numbers as well as the next moron economist, but I don't care to. It's all bullshit. What's your point again?
I keep writing about laissez- faire Capitalism only because so many others are always trying to throw the Capitalism Baby in with the Dictatorship Wash.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, there you go mixing forms of government and economic systems again. Talk about self-delusional cultists.
Nota Bene:
ReplyDeleteI am not a socialist nor a communist. I just don't fear theories about differing economic sytems. These have nothing to do with styles government.
Bart is a specific type of liberatarian. I have just the descriptor for him, but for you EWO... this is you...
"I believe in the Free Market Fairy And the Tort Sprite too. They'll keep our power cheap and our air and water clean. All you have to do is close your eyes and tap your money clip three times."
Gen. JC Christian, Patriot
I borrowed this from anonymous in the previous post. I believe it is very appropriate for my following post. Thanks Anon and I hope you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteFor Open Eyes Wide
"I believe in the Free Market Fairy And the Tort Sprite too. They'll keep our power cheap and our air and water clean. All you have to do is close your eyes and tap your money clip three times."
Laissez-Faire is defined as being an economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. A true believer in Laissez-Faire capitalism would believe in the separation of economy and state. The place where complete Laissez-Faire capitalism fails, however, is in mankind’s own greed and desire for riches. This often results in those who are stronger repressing those who are weaker.
The results of Laissez-Faire Capitalism under Bush:
While working families work harder, their wages continue to decline. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person -- that is, productivity -- has gone to profits, not wages.” (Wall Street Journal, 3/27/06) Median household income when adjusted for inflation has fallen in every year of the Bush Administration, from $46,058 in 2000 to $44,389. At the same time that families have seen their real wages decline, the productivity of the American worker is up 15.7 percent.
Nearly 48 million Americans will be uninsured for the entire year in 2005. What happens when some of these 48 million Americans get sick?
Health care premiums have increased by over 70 percent since President Bush took office. The cost of family health insurance has skyrocketed 71 percent since the beginning of the Bush Administration. The typical family health insurance premium is now $10,880 a year compared with $6,348 in 2000. (Kaiser Family Foundation)
College tuition has skyrocketed by as much as 57 percent.
Tuition and fees at four-year private universities have increased by almost $1,200 or 5.9 percent in 2005 and 32 percent since the 2000-2001 school year. At four-year public universities, tuition and fees increased by 7.1 percent this past year and 57 percent since President Bush took office. (College Board, 10/05)
Winter heating costs have risen by $341, or 62 percent. The cost of heating fuels has skyrocketed, leaving American families unprepared to deal with unprecedented increases in heating bills. The cost of heating a home for the winter has increased by $341, or 62 percent, since the winter of 2001-2002. (Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, 3/7/06)
Transportation costs for families have increased by $1,440. Prices at the gas pump have jumped 68 percent from $1.44 per gallon in January 2001 to $2.42 in March 2006, while the price for a barrel of oil has more than doubled from $29.59 in January 2001 to $61.79 in March 2006. The average household with children will spend about $3,343 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 75 percent over 2001 costs. (Energy Information Administration, Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends, 11/05 and Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices)
Worst private sector job growth since Hoover Administration. A growing economy should be good news for those seeking jobs. But over the course of President Bush’s five years in office, his Administration has the worst private sector job creation record since Herbert Hoover more than 70 years ago. This translates into an average annual job growth rate of 0.2 percent per year in the private sector since 2001. (Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 3/10/06) The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost approximately three million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration. This slow pace of private sector job creation is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery. Overall employment growth has averaged just 38,000 per month under President Bush—much lower than the 135,000 to 150,000 jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. It was not uncommon to see monthly job gains of 300,000 and even 400,000 during economic expansions under previous Administrations. (Economic Policy Institute, The Boom That Wasn’t, 12/19/05)
Bush’s deficit-financed tax cuts have widened the income gap between millionaires and middle-class workers. “In addition, it appears that the highest-salaried workers -- executives, managers and professionals -- are widening their lead on the typical worker… The Bush tax cuts appear to have widened the income gap, according to many analyses.” (Wall Street Journal, 3/27/06) President Bush’s capital gains and dividends tax cuts will cost $197 billion over ten years. Yet 70 percent of the benefits will go to taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year. In an analysis by the New York Times, “Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million… Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts…few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts.” (New York Times, 4/5/06)
More American families and children face severe financial problems. The number of Americans who are living in poverty has increased each year of the Bush Administration and is now nearly 17 percent higher today than in 2000. Thirty-seven million Americans were living in poverty at the end of 2004, an increase of 5.4 million over the 2000 level. Poverty has hit America’s children particularly hard. According to a UNICEF report on child poverty rates in 2005, more than one in five children in the United States live in “relative” poverty. (U.S. Census Bureau)
Enormous trade deficit threatens to undermine U.S. competitiveness. Each year since 2001, the U.S. trade deficit has increased at double digit rates and in 2005 set an alarming record high of $725.8 billion—twice the size of the trade deficit in 2001. Even more troubling, our trade in Advanced Technology Products, a strong indicator of U.S. competitiveness, which was in surplus as recently as 2001, experienced a deficit of more than $44 billion in 2005. (U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis)
Debt owed to foreigners climbs to record levels. In order to finance record budget deficits, the United States has had to borrow at unprecedented rates from foreigners. In the five years of President Bush’s tenure, the United States has accumulated more debt to foreigners, approximately $1.2 trillion, than this country had accumulated in its first 224 years.
Erosion of employer-provided pensions threatens Americans’ retirement security. Workers should be able to count on the retirement promises made by their employers. Increasingly, that is not the case. A recent analysis by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal entity created by Congress to protect employee pensions, found that nearly 10 percent of pension plans halted benefit accruals in 2003, the latest year for which complete data is available. According to PBGC Executive Director Bradley Belt, anecdotal evidence suggests that this number is even higher since then. Unfortunately, Bush Administration proposals to expand tax-favored savings accounts that primarily benefit the wealthy risk further pension plan erosion. (PBGC,
Record government and personal debt levels threaten economic future. Record federal deficits and debt create record interest costs. In 2006, interest costs on the federal debt will total nearly $400 billion and this figure will grow to nearly $597 billion by 2013. Record levels of personal indebtedness also limit choices and keep many Americans on the financial brink. At the end of the third quarter 2005, Americans had the worst ratio of household debt and mortgage debt to disposable income in over 25 years. These record levels of personal debt cast an ominous shadow over the economic outlook for 2006, a cloud made darker as millions of adjustable-rate mortgages will reset over the coming year, forcing consumers to pay significantly higher interest rates. (Congressional Budget Office; Federal Reserve Board)
And please don't forget to scroll past my post EWO like you promised.
Intelligent analysis of dangerous people all too lacking elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI do my best not to respond to trolls. Occasionally, however, it is useful to use their comments to point out their mind-set or techniques, as Glenn sometimes does.
ReplyDeleteEarlier on this thread I pointed out the dishonest technique of our troll referring only to U.S. casualties in order to accuse Glenn of lying.
The troll (9:21) then claimed that Iraqi civilian casualties have gone down as well.
Then, along comes EWO who says, “But when he writes something which is true or he provides facts which cannot factually be refuted by anyone impartial who bothers to check them out.”
The problem, EWO, is that when someone has repeatedly exposed themselves as dishonest, and a quick check of the facts proves that, it seems to be a waste of time to respond to them. What is the point? Facts don’t matter to them.
If they did, they wouldn’t claim as a fact that we’re winning in Iraq, things are going according to plan, and civilian casualties are down.
Really, I can’t read the news without a coming across a factual rebuttal of these talking points – and this happens constantly.
Now although our troll insists that civilian casualties are down, the
AP reports just the opposite.
One year ago Friday, when Iraq formed its first freely elected government, Americans and Iraqis hoped it would lead to a drop in violence. But Iraqis have continued to die in the thousands, and this year the trend is up.
Figures compiled by The Associated Press over the past 12 months show more than 8,000 people have been killed and there are increasing cases of civilians being kidnapped, killed and dumped in public places.
The top killer was bombs (3,895), followed by gunfire (1,960) and the discovery of dumped bodies (1,684).
In March alone, at least 1,038 Iraqis were killed in war-related violence, according to AP figures - the highest monthly total in the past 12 months.
Three of the five largest surges in violence during the year have occurred since January.
Who am I going to belief. Our troll or the AP? The AP provides facts and figures, our troll pours Kool-Aid.
If a lot of us don’t respond to trolls it is because it is a mostly a waste of time, and their “facts” are mere distortions, spin, propaganda and paranoia. When someone indulges in those things on a daily basis, it’s hard for most of us to take them seriously - or anything they say seriously.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteOkay, there, that's a start. Not a great one, but its a decent try.
Unfortunately, the tax cuts (plural) have proven a poisonous move. Not only were they originally designed so the majority of the benefit was enjoyed by the upper 10% of incomes (translating into barely 1% of the overall population), but the continued rounds of tax cuts have systematically reduced federal income at a time of greatly expanded federal outlays.
Sorry about the late response, it's going to take some time getting used to this format. Onward.....
Bart has it correct. The people that pay the most get the most benefit. We'll get to that eventually, but Federal Revenues are at a record high. More importantly the debt to GDP ratio is still lower than during most of the Clinton term. Like Bart, I think we spend too much as well and are all for reducing it.
Atop this, the Administration's bizzare economic policies have exacerbated the stagnation of the national economy and worker's wages. All while local and State taxes have had to either remain steady or actually increase to make up for the federal shortfalls.
Actually wages are being held down by virtue of offshore competition. As for State and Local government, surely you're not suggesting they would ever reduce taxes are you?
Unless you're prepared to defend the consequences of said policy, don't step up with any illusions you won't be knocked down.
Any response?
Oh ho! We have jumped immediately from "choose your weapon", to "Engarde"! Not to worry, the fight is on, and I'll call 911 for you after it's over.
Whoops, I forgot to include my source...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Arne Langsetmo says:
ReplyDeleteWell over half to the richest 10%, and much of that to the top 1%. Shooter, from the sounds of things here, probably didn't see a dime of it, but is under the strange delusion that he'll get "his" someday ... and he'll need an umbrella when the pigs are out and about.
Meanwhile, the debt is $8.364 trillion and counting, and the Clinton surpluses have turned into deficits as far as the eye can see ... but Shooter don't mind because no woman will let him near them so he won't have to worry about his children paying for the parties of Lay, Abramoff, Koslowski, et al.....
Nice. You're a real gentleman aren't you. Here's something for you to chew on....those Clinton surpluses were only projections based on the tax cut Clinton signed in 1997. Hmmm. Tax cut and surpluses.....
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 10:43PM:
"Given that these groups bear even an even higher share of the tax burden, exactly why is this wrong?"
The better question is "Did they need a tax cut in the first place?"
Shooter says..... Who is greedier, the person that wants to keep more of their earnings, or the person that covets those earning for themself?
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteThe place where complete Laissez-Faire capitalism fails, however, is in mankind’s own greed and desire for riches. This often results in those who are stronger repressing those who are weaker.
I have to make this short, I have a tee time. Capitalism is actually just a more formalized system of barter, the oldest economic system of trade there is. It is actually driven by self-interest, as is nearly every decision made.
As for the stronger repressing the weaker.... what a load. You're describing anarchy such as found in Darfur. Every system and I mean EVERY system has a ladder of priviledge. In Darfur it's killing ability, In Cuba it's political proximity and family ties to the dictator, In the Middle East it's religious affiliation. Fortunately, in the capitalist system it's who can provide the best product or service to the rest of the participants. I prefer that myself, and I suspect you do too.
Pooter,
ReplyDeleteYou truly are a boob. You forgot that link to the CBO report because subconcsiously you knew we would laugh at it prima facie. It's put out by the same bunch of crooks who are all being investigated and soon to be indicted. Most of the clasical conservatives here and the true Republicans don't trust a word that drools from this criminally corrupt GOP/Norquist controlled and bought and paid for by Ambramoff Congress. As I said in another thread, every time you shoot, you miss. Don't play with guns, pooter, you will likely shoot your own, or like your hero Cheney, someone else's face off.
Your pathetic anarcho-capitalist/suburban livingroom libertarianism/tupperware party is to laugh at.
Shooter says..... Who is greedier, the person that wants to keep more of their earnings, or the person that covets those earning for themself?
ReplyDeleteE Pluribus Unum, pooter. Not in God and capitalism we trust.
The wealthy should pay taxes on their wealth. I'm not in favor of taxes on income earned in exchange for labor in most cases. But as long as the hyper-rich like Paris Hilton wish to shuffle the tax burden onto the backs of the hardworking middle class, we will have the system we have so the really wealthy, a rareified class you will never be a member of, can have a useful idiot like yourself spout this nonsense. How much land do you own, pooter? If it's under a million acres, or only 50 rental properties in a prime urban area, you ain't rich rich.
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteEarlier on this thread I pointed out the dishonest technique of our troll referring only to U.S. casualties in order to accuse Glenn of lying.
The troll (9:21) then claimed that Iraqi civilian casualties have gone down as well.
Then, along comes EWO who says, “But when he writes something which is true or he provides facts which cannot factually be refuted by anyone impartial who bothers to check them out.”
The problem, EWO, is that when someone has repeatedly exposed themselves as dishonest, and a quick check of the facts proves that, it seems to be a waste of time to respond to them. What is the point? Facts don’t matter to them.
If they did, they wouldn’t claim as a fact that we’re winning in Iraq, things are going according to plan, and civilian casualties are down.
Really, I can’t read the news without a coming across a factual rebuttal of these talking points – and this happens constantly.
Really? Every time you accuse me of being a liar I call you on it and you slink away. Prepare to tuck you tail between your legs again...
Brookings compiles Iraq data in a pdf called the Iraq Index. Go to page 10 of that index.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Iraqi civilian casualties peaked around September 2005 in the midst of the al Qaeda suicide bombing campaign at between 1400 to 2400 depending on what source you use.
However, as a result of the US / Iraqi offensives against al Qaeda, they lost many of their bomb factories and their bombings went down by 60%, as I documented and linked before.
As the bombings went down, Iraiq civilian casualties went down to between 470 and 820 by January of 2006.
When al Qaeda bombed the Shia holy shrine, there was a small spike in casualties in March to between 545 and 1192 with Shia revenge killings.
However, the civil war for which al Qaeda hoped never occurred. Reported Iraqi civilian casualties for April are between 228 to 399, some of the lowest since before the terror campaign started in 2004.
Now although our troll insists that civilian casualties are down, the AP reports just the opposite.
You mean like when they reported the 39 beheaded corpses last month which never existed or the story of two teachers being beheaded in front of their class which never occurred?
Given that many of these estimates of Iraqi casualties are based on media reports which are exaggerated or outright fabrications of Iraqi stringers given to Western reporters who never leave the Green Zone to confirm these stories, the casualty figures on which we rely are probably inflated.
However, let's see what the AP has to say this time around...
One year ago Friday, when Iraq formed its first freely elected government, Americans and Iraqis hoped it would lead to a drop in violence. But Iraqis have continued to die in the thousands, and this year the trend is up.
Well, AP starts right off the bat with a misrepresentation. The new government was just elected, yet the AP is using casualty figures which predate the elections. A 10 year old should have been able to spot this lie. Why are you relying upon this lie as a fact?
In March alone, at least 1,038 Iraqis were killed in war-related violence, according to AP figures - the highest monthly total in the past 12 months. Three of the five largest surges in violence during the year have occurred since January.
This is a flat out lie. Where did these figures come from? Brookings cites a half dozen sources for their data. AP cites nothing nor does it claim that its reporters saw these bodies.
Moral #1: ALWAYS double check whatever you read in the press. Unless the reporter can cite multiple sources or eyeballed this him or herself, assume it is crap.
Moral #2: Before you all me a liar, you better have your acts in line or I will make you look silly...again.
Pooter doesn't know what anarchy, capitalism or the barter system is. He's truly a libertarian useful idiot. Somehow I can't imagine him jerking off to cheesy secind rate romance novels by Ayn Rand. That's one thing in his favor. Libertarians, not all libertarians, mind you, there are many flavors of libertarians, but the one's like pooter are analogous to the Evangelists, or even Scientologist in this country. Same dynamic and strict, religious adherence to a doctine of fantasy with no basis in fact. They claim that all the founders were libertarians, (they are dead and can't object) when most of them, were they here today, would laugh at their pseudo politcal and economic philosophies. I wonder if pooter knows who first coined the term? It was anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who first coined the term libertarian in 1857. As another poster on another thread pointed out, and as demonstrated by the prisoner's dilemma and other gedunken experiments in game theory, rational self-interest leads to very bad results on a global scale.
ReplyDeleteMoral #1: ALWAYS double check whatever you read in the press. Unless the reporter can cite multiple sources or eyeballed this him or herself, assume it is crap.
ReplyDeleteExcellent advice for pooter when he cites the Moonie times and Regnery hack Gertz.
While I will grant Bart that Brookings is the one think tank we lend any creedence to, and Hudson on occasion, I wouldn't go off so hot on Zack. No one is accurately counting civillian casualties. No one wants to. The Lancet makes projections that are at variance with your assertions. I will go for the middle ground and that still leaves your argument with no legs, Bart.
shooter242:
ReplyDeleteBart has it correct. The people that pay the most get the most benefit.
Ummmm, that's what I said, in effect (and I gave a link): Over half of the tax cuts went to the richest 1%. The only step you need to take to get from your statement to mine is to figure out that the richest (usually) pay more taxes. Go ahead and run on a platform where the richest shouldn't pay the most taxes; be my guest.
But we can also look at the proportional benefits (percentage tax redution compared to total taxes) gained by various demographic groups, and there the rich made out comparatively as well. You can assert, if you will, your opinion that the rich were overtaxed and deserve a proportionately bigger reduction, but that's not the same as saying that the tax cuts helped the middle class primarily (by either measure, proportinately or by absolute amount). One of the problems in reducing the relative tax burden on the rich, I might add, is that this is in the end an effective tax increase for the rest, as either their children's share of the debt rises disproportinately, or their level of services goes down as gummint money gets scarce (i.e., college funding, etc.).
Nice. You're a real gentleman aren't you.
No. I treat a$$h***s (and liars) with the respect they're due. I don't believe in any kind of faux "civility" when dealing with the screaming RW foamer battalions (and you're one in spades). I've been "debating" folks like you for well over a decade, and I know. As pointed out in previous threads here, "discussion" with the likes of you is not productive; you've read your Limbaugh Report, your WhirledNutDaily, your SnoozeMax, all your "talking points" and you're not about to be dissuaded from your opinions by any argument or actual facts. The best we can hope for is to rebut your "facts" when they're put forth, produce our own links, and hope that any lurkers or by-passers here won't get snowed by your BS.
Like this:
... Here's something for you to chew on....those Clinton surpluses were only projections ...
Oh, really?
... based on the tax cut Clinton signed in 1997....
Care you back up your statement with anything approaching ... umm, evidence?
Hmmm. Tax cut and surpluses.....
Clue for you: Other people can't see your hallucinations.
Another clue for you: Assertion is not a valid form of argument.
Cheers,
Bart, I pleasantly surprised by the fact that you agree with Vonnegut that the Allied fire bombing of Dresden during WWII was "terrorism," and therefore, a war crime. I suppose we can include Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.
ReplyDeleteBart said...Hardly. You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare. Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country.
Terrorism are attacks against the population for the purpose of generating enough fear to cause the population to submit.
However, terrorism has never conquered a country. It doesn't eliminate the government forces or take territory. It is simply one long war crime against the civilian population.
"Terrorism" however it is defined, and no one agrees on that, has been a most effective tool or weapon in the tool box of warfare and conflict, and has helped to conquer many a country throughout history, Bart. And you know that as well as the rest of us. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't teach it at what used to be called the SOA at Ft. Benning and other places. The only single tool in that box that might achieve this goal is probably the nuke, but you might not have much to show for it.
I don't know what you are talking about here because I suspect that neither do you.
"You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare. Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country."
This sounds like your counter- insurgency training talking... or do you have an example of this definition of "classic" LIC?
US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
General Sir Frank Kitson only coined the term in the late 60s.
Anonymous said...
From UNODC. I'm not sure if the US signed off on these... I doubt it. Not this admin.
Definitions of Terrorism
Conventions
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
3:29 AM
pooter: Nice. You're a real gentleman aren't you.
ReplyDeleteArne: No. I treat a$$h***s (and liars) with the respect they're due. I don't believe in any kind of faux "civility" when dealing with the screaming RW foamer battalions (and you're one in spades).
They really just want to be hugged. They thought we did therapy. Karl told them...
From Bart at 10:32AM:
ReplyDelete"When al Qaeda bombed the Shia holy shrine, there was a small spike in casualties in March to between 545 and 1192 with Shia revenge killings."
Two factual points:
1. I don't believe its ever been conclusively determined exactly who was responsible for the Shrine bombing. Simply labeling every large explosion or the like as 'Al Qaeda' or 'Baathists' isn't terribly convincing.
2. "Between 545 and 1,192" is not a "small spike", given *any* upsurge in killings of civilians (be it by other civilians, rogue militia, or US actions) only further undermines the security environment. I'd expect you to understand that by now.
"However, the civil war for which al Qaeda hoped never occurred. Reported Iraqi civilian casualties for April are between 228 to 399, some of the lowest since before the terror campaign started in 2004."
The 'civil war' is already ongoing, albeit at a relatively low-intensity and primarily under the media radar. As Kos himself pointed out, a civil war doesn't involve nonstop explosions and atrocities committed in the street.
You can quibble all you want about tactics, percentages of casualties, and trends, but the ugly truth is that the country is sliding towards actual, if not outright chaos.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart said...Hardly. You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare.
Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country.
Terrorism are attacks against the population for the purpose of generating enough fear to cause the population to submit.
However, terrorism has never conquered a country. It doesn't eliminate the government forces or take territory. It is simply one long war crime against the civilian population.
Anonymous: "Terrorism" however it is defined, and no one agrees on that, has been a most effective tool or weapon in the tool box of warfare and conflict, and has helped to conquer many a country throughout history, Bart.
OK, name these countries, present your evidence and we can discuss it. Just don't make an assertion and move on.
This sounds like your counter- insurgency training talking... or do you have an example of this definition of "classic" LIC?
Read Mao, Che Guevara and Sun Tzu as primary sources of guerilla warfare. Secondary sources would include histories of the southern campaign of our American Revolution, the Haitian uprising against the French, as well as the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban communist campaigns.
US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
Good lord! That is perhaps the worst non definition I have ever read.
To clarify my viewpoint, I distinguish guerilla warfare against military targets with the end of military conquest of a country with terrorism, which is the mass murder of civilians as means to cow a population.
Definitions of Terrorism
Conventions
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
This is the distinction which I was making.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart said...Hardly. You are missing the difference between terrorism and classic low intensity warfare.
Classic low intensity warfare consists of a smaller force of guerillas defeating smaller detachments of the government military until the guerills force gains a parity and can go on a conventional war to take over the country.
Terrorism are attacks against the population for the purpose of generating enough fear to cause the population to submit.
However, terrorism has never conquered a country. It doesn't eliminate the government forces or take territory. It is simply one long war crime against the civilian population.
Anonymous: "Terrorism" however it is defined, and no one agrees on that, has been a most effective tool or weapon in the tool box of warfare and conflict, and has helped to conquer many a country throughout history, Bart.
OK, name these countries, present your evidence and we can discuss it. Just don't make an assertion and move on.
This sounds like your counter- insurgency training talking... or do you have an example of this definition of "classic" LIC?
Read Mao, Che Guevara and Sun Tzu as primary sources of guerilla warfare. Secondary sources would include histories of the southern campaign of our American Revolution, the Haitian uprising against the French, as well as the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban communist campaigns.
US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
Good lord! That is perhaps the worst non definition I have ever read.
To clarify my viewpoint, I distinguish guerilla warfare against military targets with the end of military conquest of a country with terrorism, which is the mass murder of civilians as means to cow a population.
Definitions of Terrorism
Conventions
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
This is the distinction which I was making.
The Brookings Institution said that their figures cited “form the lower bound.” This is because they do not include entries that span multiple months, involve the death of Iraqi police, Iraqi recruits, or Civil Defense Forces.
ReplyDeleteThey say it is “still unclear how many civilians were killed in the outbursts of sectarian violence” related to the bombing of the mosque. Their figures, they insist, do not reflect the actual killings or violence in Iraq on a daily basis, only those killed “by acts of war.”
In short, their figures do not reflect the actual discussion we are having here. They are not talking at all about the level of violence on a daily basis, sectarian violence, or the actual number of civilians and others who are being killed.
They also stipulate (underlined in bold) “we recognize that these estimates are probably much lower than the actual number” since many incidents go unreported and unnoticed.
In short, the Brookings criteria is totally different than the AP’s criteria. Apples and oranges.
Is this proof that the AP is lying? Of course not. It is nothing of the kind. If someone wants to make the claim the AP is lying they need to use the same criteria not a study which intentionally excludes numerous deaths, and ignores the bodies showing up in the morgues and the revenge killings.
I don’t have all day to knock down these kind of arguments, but it proves once again the depths of deception, distortion and dishonesty that our trolls use to make their points.
This time, I checked the source, and I’m not the one looking silly. Take a look at all other articles at their site – they all tend to reflect how badly things are going in Iraq – the opposite of the spin given by our trolls.
yankeependragon said... The 'civil war' is already ongoing, albeit at a relatively low-intensity and primarily under the media radar. As Kos himself pointed out, a civil war doesn't involve nonstop explosions and atrocities committed in the street.
ReplyDeleteI was going to suggest that Bart's idea of a civil war is the one he gets from watching Ken Burns documentaries, but it may even come from a scarier source, like those sites, I won't link to them, that long for a rematch, and even claim that up to 10,000 black slaves in the south fought with the confederacy against the federal troops because they didn't want to be emnacipated. I'm not joking either, and these stories have even made it into the MS press, for sure the Moonie Times. In any case, guys like Bart have a hard time recognizing civil wars, or sectarian violence with more than two factions. These folks are still convinced that "the commies" were taking over South East Asia. They did in Viet Nam, precisely because we got involved in a civil war there. Our failed foreign policies are so good at achieving the very results we least want to see. Anyway, Viet Nam was uniified as a communist state, and guess what, the world kept spinning, the sun kept rising... We'll be lucky if we can pull that off this time. These clowns have destabilized the most unstable region on the planet.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 10:32AM: "When al Qaeda bombed the Shia holy shrine, there was a small spike in casualties in March to between 545 and 1192 with Shia revenge killings."
Two factual points:
1. I don't believe its ever been conclusively determined exactly who was responsible for the Shrine bombing. Simply labeling every large explosion or the like as 'Al Qaeda' or 'Baathists' isn't terribly convincing.
Agreed. However, the concensus is that this was an al Qaeda attack because their primary goal has been to create a civil war between the Sunni and Shia Iraqis and this would just be an escalation of their admitted bombings outside of Shia mosques for th past year. The Baathist Iraqi attacks have been aimed at government, police and infrastructure with the intent that the new government and army fail.
2. "Between 545 and 1,192" is not a "small spike", given *any* upsurge in killings of civilians (be it by other civilians, rogue militia, or US actions) only further undermines the security environment. I'd expect you to understand that by now.
It is half of the "big" spike during the previous summer. Thus, my usage of "small spike."
Everything is relative.
When compared to WWII, we might call it a "tiny spike." Our carpet bombing of St Lo to break out of Normandy killed maybe 5000 French civilians in a couple hours. Millions of civilians died in WWII. Yet, that did not dominate the headlines.
"However, the civil war for which al Qaeda hoped never occurred. Reported Iraqi civilian casualties for April are between 228 to 399, some of the lowest since before the terror campaign started in 2004."
The 'civil war' is already ongoing, albeit at a relatively low-intensity and primarily under the media radar. As Kos himself pointed out, a civil war doesn't involve nonstop explosions and atrocities committed in the street.
Sorry, I disagree. A civil war looks like Lebanon with warring militias controlling discrete territory with the intent of taking over the country in a military campaign. There is nothing like that here. Indeed, the terrorism against the civilian population is falling off significantly.
You can quibble all you want about tactics, percentages of casualties, and trends, but the ugly truth is that the country is sliding towards actual, if not outright chaos.
How? Present your evidence. ALL the indicators are otherwise.
bart says... OK, name these countries, present your evidence and we can discuss it. Just don't make an assertion and move on.
ReplyDeleteAnd then he answers his own question...
Read Mao, Che Guevara and Sun Tzu as primary sources of guerilla warfare. Secondary sources would include histories of the southern campaign of our American Revolution, the Haitian uprising against the French, as well as the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban communist campaigns.
I'm familiar with them, and others, like T.E. Lawrence, B.H. Lidell Hart, The Gallic Wars, in Latin, Sherman, Giap... it's a long list, but only a hobby, reading, that is.
Good lord! That is perhaps the worst non definition I have ever read.
Yes. Our military, and our national security are in serious trouble. That's why most of us are here.
To clarify my viewpoint, I distinguish guerilla warfare against military targets with the end of military conquest of a country with terrorism, which is the mass murder of civilians as means to cow a population.
Guerilla warfare? Now you tell us. Good. Let's define that term now, shall we?
This is the distinction which I was making.
Hardly. If so, quite poorly.
And please don't cross examine me, counselor. This ain't a court of law, I'm not under oath, and the majority of us here are the judge... I'd say your case lacks merit, it may even be frivolous...
zach said...
ReplyDeleteThe Brookings Institution said that their figures cited “form the lower bound.” This is because they do not include entries that span multiple months, involve the death of Iraqi police, Iraqi recruits, or Civil Defense Forces.
This is a fair definition of civilians. Police are a legitimate military target, civilians are a war crime. AP doesn't give us a source nevertheless a definition.
They say it is “still unclear how many civilians were killed in the outbursts of sectarian violence” related to the bombing of the mosque. Their figures, they insist, do not reflect the actual killings or violence in Iraq on a daily basis, only those killed “by acts of war.”
You are misrepresenting the definition used by one of Brookings' sources, Iraq Body Count. They are limiting their numbers to civilians killed in the war, as opposed to crime or natural causes.
Remember that the crime in Iraq has been horrendous after Saddam emptied his prisons. However, the criminals are not part of some sort of insurgency.
They also stipulate (underlined in bold) “we recognize that these estimates are probably much lower than the actual number” since many incidents go unreported and unnoticed.
They should have a similar disclaimer that many of these counts are based on questionable press reports, almost none of which have been confirmed by the reporters themselves and a number of which were revealed as fabrications.
This is why I like Brookings chart with a range of potential casualties. This is a rough guess based on the best available data and can only be used to show trends. The trends showed are all downward and put the lie to the AP article which you cited.
In short, the Brookings criteria is totally different than the AP’s criteria. Apples and oranges.
No, its apples to air. AP gave no sources or criteria.
Is this proof that the AP is lying? Of course not. It is nothing of the kind.
Here is how you destroy the credibility of someone on the stand.
Present the best evidence of the actual facts.
Show that the witnesses claims are are different from the best evidence of the actual facts.
Show examples from the witnesses' own testimony that are contradictory or misrepresentative. (In our case, the use of civilian death figures from before the election to show the rise in violence after the elections.)
Then show that the witness has no objective basis for his claims. (In our case, AP has no sources or criteria.)
By the end of that cross examination, the jury will think that the witness is a complete liar and disregard his or her testimony.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletebart says... OK, name these countries, present your evidence and we can discuss it. Just don't make an assertion and move on.
And then he answers his own question...
Read Mao, Che Guevara and Sun Tzu as primary sources of guerilla warfare. Secondary sources would include histories of the southern campaign of our American Revolution, the Haitian uprising against the French, as well as the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban communist campaigns.
These were military guerilla campaigns which eventually conquered their respective counties with a military force.
The example of terror campaigns would be the IRA's failed attempt to conquer N. Ireland with a bombing and shooting campaign against civilians and the Palestinian's similar campaign against Israel.
The fact that terror may accompany some guerilla military campaigns does not mean that terror conquered any country. In every single case of which I am aware, you need military forces to conquer a country. No population has voluntarily surrendered their government to a gang of terrorists murdering civilians as their means of action.
Bart says...Sorry, I disagree. A civil war looks like Lebanon with warring militias controlling discrete territory with the intent of taking over the country in a military campaign. There is nothing like that here. Indeed, the terrorism against the civilian population is falling off significantly.
ReplyDeleteJust wait until we leave, like we did in Lebanon, under cut and run Ronnie. The major difference here is that we removed the very "rough man on the wall" that kept these people from going at it. Orwell never said that by the way. That's a false attribution. And let's be honest here, the old paradigms get discarded, or shifted to new ones. You have no idea what a civil war will look like in Iraq, and all your old models and definitions are just so much verbal two-stepping. Remember, you were trained by the same military that came up with the worst non-definition definition you have ever seen.
Bart, go back and read what I initially wrote. That should clear things up. It's an honest mistake (giving the benefit of the doubt), there's alot of chaff here, most of it mine. I never said I disagreed with you about terror being a tool in the box that can conquer a country by itself. I said it was one of the tools used, and has been used successfully numerous times in conjuction with the other tools in the box.
ReplyDeleteMichael Birk said...
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open:
"can anyone here spare 18 dollars or are you all too poor? Buying a share of JetBlue for $10 and adding about $8 dollars for an online trade is above your means?"
You can't be seriously suggesting that it would be a smart investment to pay 80% commissions to speculate on a single share of stock.
Cult of the Ayatollah Rand.
Hey Bart- repeat ad nauseum "Its getting better all the time, can't get no worse."
ReplyDeleteBy JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - With oil prices above $70 a barrel fouling the world economy, dismay is focusing on Iraq, whose exports have slipped to their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion.
"Iraq could be making a tremendous difference," said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi. Instead, its shortfall is "a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil," he said.
Iraq, a founding member of OPEC, sits atop the world's third-highest proven reserves. Its estimated 115 billion barrels is more than any other OPEC member except for Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But contrary to optimistic expectations, Iraq's oil production has slipped further and further since the U.S.-led invasion, to an average of 2 million barrels a day. It has never regained even the reduced production levels that prevailed in the 1990s, when Iraq was under tough U.N. sanctions.
Oh, sorry I forgot the Donkey AP is always lying......
Shooter 242 said:
ReplyDelete"As for the stronger repressing the weaker.... what a load. You're describing anarchy such as found in Darfur.
Oh it's no load, all you have to do is open your eyes and look.
During the late 1800's and early 1900s we had child labor and sweat shops in this country. It still exists, it's just out of sight now, overseas instead of here. With a few exceptions like the sweat shops found in California not too long ago.
And there are plenty of examples from kids under ten years old in India chained to weaving machines in buildings with a single light bulb, making by hand those persian rugs the rich like so much. Their fingertips burned with gunpowder to keep them from feeling it when they poke themselves with the needles they use.
To people in Mexico working for trans-national corporations living in homes made from 5 garage doors with no heat, light, or running water. Their hovels built on the dirt that became knee deep mud when it rained. Unable to get to work that day because of the mud, they were penalized by being required to work for the next three days without pay when they were able to return to their jobs the following day. An instance documented by a U.S. Senator doing a fact finding trip along the U.S. border with Mexico
To kids in China picking through toxic electronic scrap to salvage the precious metals.
Or mabe you'd prefer seeing the pregnant female floor supervisor working in a Carribean clothing sweatshop. Who when she reported that she didn't feel well and wanted to go home was told that if she left not to come back, and later aborted her baby on the factory floor.
All true instances, a few among the thousands or hundreds of thousands that exist that people like yourself prefer not to see because you are too busy getting ready for a tee time.
All in the name of increasing profits and shareholder value.
But surely you don't think that the business leaders should abrogate their responsibility to the shareholders and the bottom line? Those workers choose to work in those conditions of their own free will. (business as usual, corporate style)
ReplyDeleteLes Izmore said...
ReplyDelete(business as usual, corporate style)
Sad but true
It's not photoshopped. See here for a local news article on the incident, including a photo of a worker washing the paint off the door.
ReplyDelete