shotbanner.jpeg

March 02, 2006

Fondest Dreams; Crushed?

In the past week, the media and left have been audibly slavering over the possibility of a civil war in Iraq.

It is, indeed, the last shot at redemption for their policy; it's the only way Bush's policy can objectively "fail" in coming years.

You can hear it in Katie Couric's voice, in John Stewart's sneer, in the perfunctory way so many lefty commentators pronounce that it's already begun.

According to the WaPo, they may have jumped the gun:

In the days that followed the bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine, Iraq seemed within a hair's breadth of civil war. But an aggressive U.S. and Kurdish diplomatic campaign appears for now to have coaxed the country back from open conflict between Sunni Arabs and Shiites, according to Iraqi politicians and Western diplomats speaking in interviews on Monday.

"Localized difficulties also persist, but I think, at the strategic level, this crisis -- a mosque attack leading to civil war -- is over," Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said in a telephone interview. "It was a serious crisis. I believe that Iraq came to the brink and came back."

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Mitch at March 2, 2006 10:35 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Gee, I thought Bush's policy could objectively fail if, you know, he failed to win the war in Iraq.

Oh I forgot. You wingnuts will just move the goalposts. Again. Security through defeat or somesuch.

Posted by: angryclown at March 2, 2006 12:57 PM

voice?

sneer?

perfunctory way?

broad brush, anyone?

Mitch, unless you can find someone on the left who is openly saying "I can't wait for even more people in Iraq to kill each other" or words to that effect, all you're doing is locking yourself into a self-reenforcing loop which increasingly objectifies and dehumanizes YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS, a road which leads you into fertilizer truck bomb territory.

Get a grip, man.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at March 2, 2006 01:32 PM

Bill.

Well said.

Mitch, I will agree that there is a part of me that looks at the chaos in Iraq and says, "see, we told you so," and then the human part of me says, "yeah, that's really great, 200 people died, what an increadible tragedy."

The difference, I'm not concerned about "winning" such a debate, for you, it's all it's about.

Bush can fail a million ways, and on a million things. He can fail if the Shiia take over and establish a sectarian, theocratic Shiia/Iranian dominated state.

He can fail if civil war breaks out.

He can fail if the government is so weak it essentially controls only major cities, and the rest is chaos (i.e. Afghanistan, perhaps you've heard of it).

To say that civil war is the ONLY way he can fail is absurd, and is, as AC says, moving the goal posts.

But to say that those who disagree with you, i.e. 90% of the country who aren't actually rabid enough to try to demonize anything that disagrees with them (like suggesting folks are happy about death - wow, no that's not an insult I'm sure), anyway, that kind of comment makes you look like a spiteful, shallow man seeking to score points at the expense of truth, and others, which ironically, is precisely what you've accused the left of doing.

Notably, there is a story out today that the supposedly "deleted" e-mails regarding Valerie Wilson have been found.

You claimed the left was rabid when it said it was a practice to discredit Wilson (Joe), and that the actions were simply an effort to clarify that Cheney didn't send Joe Wilson.

The e-mails refute that. It was a concerted effort to discredite Wilson dating back to March 2003.

You claimed Cheney wasn't involved, and that the left were wingnuts for suggesting it.

The e-mails refute that. Cheney's fingerprints(e-mails) are all over the place.

You claimed that it wasn't an attempt at retribution by going after Wilson's wife.

The e-mails refute that. The e-mails appear to indicate a direct effort to involve his wife as a mechanism to discredit Wilson - i.e. retribution.

Perhaps your claims of lefty bias are true, perhaps they are "out to get folks" no matter the human cost, but if so, how would that make them different from you?

PB

Posted by: pb at March 2, 2006 02:02 PM

"Fertilizer truck bomb terrirtory"? Bill, compare what Mitch wrote in his post -- John Stewart "sneers", the left "openly slavers" -- against what you'd read in, say, a mac-vs-PC flame war. You're overreacting, dude.

Posted by: Terry at March 2, 2006 02:15 PM

"In the past week, the media and left have been audibly slavering over the possibility of a civil war in Iraq."

Boy howdy, you bet we are! We're also slavering over the prospect of Iran's nuclear capabilites,
an avian flu pandemic, Gulf Coast hurricanes, the impending death of President Ford, pinkeye for your children and damp, drizzly weather for the month of May. Oh, and attacks. More terrorist attacks in the US please. Because it all makes President Bush look foolish...but not as foolish as half-baked "observations" such as yours.

Posted by: Tim at March 2, 2006 03:07 PM

Boy, tough crowd. You must be hitting a fairly raw nerve, Berg.

Posted by: Kermit at March 2, 2006 03:34 PM

Tim wrote:
"the prospect of Iran's nuclear capabilites,
an avian flu pandemic, Gulf Coast hurricanes, the impending death of President Ford, pinkeye for your children and damp, drizzly weather for the month of May."
If you weren't such a bad person, Tim, God wouldn't be punishing you like this.

Posted by: Terry at March 2, 2006 03:46 PM

"the prospect of Iran's nuclear capabilites,
an avian flu pandemic, Gulf Coast hurricanes, the impending death of President Ford, pinkeye for your children and damp, drizzly weather for the month of May."

All of which, you'd THINK, would trump a video taken six months ago showing Bush being briefed that hurricanes are dangerous, yet it's being hailed as the biggest story since Cheney shot a man in the face.

But the way, Tim, is drizzly May weather really on your news radar right now? I mean, THE HORROR!

Posted by: Ryan at March 2, 2006 04:10 PM

"You must be hitting a fairly raw nerve..."

Of course it hits a nerve; it was a cheap shot. The last refuge of a desperate pundit is to announce that your opposition desires whatever disaster your side has incurred. The next logical step is to assert that Bush detractors are unpatriotic. Curious we should witness such a strategy from a blogger who howls like a stuck pig at similar slanderous cheap shots aimed at gun rights supporters.

Posted by: Tim at March 2, 2006 05:24 PM

Mitch, honest to God--Iraq is already judged a failure. In today's FOX poll (FOX, fer cripes' sake!) 81% of respondents expect Iraq to eventually devolve into civil war.

I'm not happy about the prospect of civil war in Iraq. I'd dearly like to believe that it won't happen, that by some miracle things there will ultimately settle down and go well. I simply have no faith that the Bush administration is capable of competence; if there is a solution to the problems in Iraq, it is up to the Iraqis to find them.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at March 2, 2006 06:50 PM

Kermit,

The crowd is tough, becasue once again, ole' Blame anyone else Berg is attacking the left as his Seminal issue on Iraq. Claiming that Bush is not likely to fail other than if there is a civil war is akin to claiming the folks who tried to fly a balloon across the Atlantic would only be considered a failure if their balloon ran out of water.

It's a bombastic red herring through which he attacks others. The reality is that Berg only knows attack. His party, really his ideology has been in power for 5 years, and has accomplished very little other than handouts for the wealthy and corporate interests, and while you probably would debate that, there is little debate that Iraq is a collosal mess (and ole Mitch the accurate inaccurately predicted it would be all peachy by now after the elections - not perfect but LOTS better). The real idiocy though is blaming the left media for the problem (obliquely), or at least trying to make the debate about the craven nature of the media.

When Mitch actually grows a pair (euphemistically) he'll stand up and defend policy, rather than simply attacking people unrelated to the real problem.

So Yeah Kerm, it's a tough crowd, it should be, this President lied about his reasons for war, both before and afterward, lied about the capabilities of Iraq, and ABOUT GOING TO WAR, for apparently his own gain, that's really, really, really bad, and now it's all going to hell in a handbasket, and all Mitch can do is accuse us of being glad about it.

Classless doesn't begin to cut it- scummy is close. Tell me, how might you react to be accused of being glad about the deaths of several hundred people?

PB

Posted by: pb at March 2, 2006 09:07 PM

Mitch,
Spot on with your observation of the "tone" of the media.
You will never win the 'Sea Lawyer' game of "no one has exactly said they wish for failure so they can say I told you so about President Bush."

If you ever get a chance check out the comedy schtick done by Barry Sobel a number of years ago on Rodney Dangefield's comedy show (around the Andrew Dice Clay timeframe), he talks about trying to argue generalities with someone who will always be able to give you that example to prove you wrong.
Keep up the good work my friend.

Posted by: fingers at March 2, 2006 09:54 PM

"Iraq is already judged a failure."

Really? I mean, by whom other than Democrats and non-military people and people who've hung their hopes on seeing the Bush Adminstration smeared?

" In today's FOX poll (FOX, fer cripes' sake!) 81% of respondents expect Iraq to eventually devolve into civil war."

Jeff, you have this historical problem with polls; you *pay attention* to them.

Polls - especially their conclusions - are entirely subject to the agendae of those who pay for them.

Posted by: mitch at March 2, 2006 10:28 PM

Mitch,

You know me well enough to know I'm a pretty reasonable judge of strategic situations and things military, Iraq is not going to come out well. You can claim it will, you can predict it will, but that will not make it so.

Even members of the administration are now admitting Iraq has weakened our international capacity, militarily, as well as our international standing. We're seen as having LESS ability to project power, not more. Iraq is seen as an example of our inability to really control a nation precisely because our throw-weight in ground troops is so small, yet expensive.

Iraq has two probable outcomes- first, a weak government dominated by Iran and Shiia, second, sectarian violence near or at what we'd call civil war, probably leading to independent federal districts. None are good for us.

I'll wager that prediction against your's of things being peachy by August any day... and given the predictions of the left have been FAR FAR FAR x10000 more accurate than Bush and the administration, I'd say you might want to rethink your statement of "the only hope for failure".

and w/o meaning to be really mean to "fingers" if his kind of military prognostication is to agree with this post, he just pretty much disqualified himself from serious consideration as some sort of expert. The media reports what sells, someone who can't observe that seems unlikely to be erudite/astute enough to gauge the capability of the enemy. But that's just one grunt's opinion of course. Again, sorry fingers, it's not meant personally, just an observation of the quality of your comment.

PB

Posted by: pb at March 2, 2006 10:54 PM

Jeff educated: " In today's FOX poll (FOX, fer cripes' sake!) 81% of respondents expect Iraq to eventually devolve into civil war."

Mitch replied: "Jeff, you have this historical problem with polls; you *pay attention* to them."

While it's easy to forget lately, we do still live in a democratic country. You know, more or less. Congressional Republicans gotta get elected, you know. And they're already putting distance between themselves and Bush. You might want to start paying attention to some of the polls. Cause if most people begin to believe we're not winning and we're not likely, Bush will be forced to pull the plug.

Posted by: angryclown at March 3, 2006 05:23 AM

Mitch hallucinatedL "Polls - especially their conclusions - are entirely subject to the agendae of those who pay for them."

Geez, just noticed this. Mitch, Jeff said that was a FOX poll. RNC TV. If Ailes is skewing polls against the war, you've got yourself a political earthquake.

Mitch, reality called. It misses you.

Posted by: angryclown at March 3, 2006 05:27 AM

Clown,

First: Never heard of the poll, and I'd need to look at the polling criteria.

Second: No, I caught the Fox reference. Fox *news* is not a whole lot farther to the right than ABC.

Posted by: mitch at March 3, 2006 06:11 AM

Mitch: "No, I caught the Fox reference. Fox *news* is not a whole lot farther to the right than ABC."

Yesterday on my blog, I wrote:

"I await the posts telling us how FOX is just part of the MSM."

Looks like it's coming soon. When FOX gives you the wrong answers...FOX is just part of the liberal media conspiracy!

Mitch--seriously, really? You're *really* going to assert that FOX--*FOX*--is only slightly to the right of ABC?

(Incidentally, when talking about fondest dreams, let's not forget who it was who ran the segment with the headline, "All Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?" I'll give you a hint: it wasn't CBS.)

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at March 3, 2006 07:25 AM

I actually read a pb post.
"Claiming that Bush is not likely to fail other than if there is a civil war is akin to claiming the folks who tried to fly a balloon across the Atlantic would only be considered a failure if their balloon ran out of water."

Can anyone explain to me what the Hell this is supposed to mean?

Posted by: Kermit at March 3, 2006 08:00 AM

AC, Zogby just released a "poll" in which he claims 90% of American troops think we are in Iraq to punish Saddam for 9/11. What's that word Mitch likes so much? Ah yes, buncombe.
Polls mean what pollsters want them to mean.

Posted by: Kermit at March 3, 2006 08:03 AM

Mitch said: "No, I caught the Fox reference. Fox *news* is not a whole lot farther to the right than ABC."

Mitch learns that reality, even when spun to the right by FOX, is to the left of Mitch.

Posted by: angryclown at March 3, 2006 08:18 AM

Check out the Barry Sobel monologue and see which commentor it applies to!

DOD claims its mission is to fight and win this country's wars. Of course it hasn't been renamed the Department of Power Projection, but there in lies the rub. Phase IV operations are not sexy and don't tend to result in the big $ funds for new weapons systems. Hence they receive less emphasis and are truly not the phase of operations that are trained to and equipped for (ie. service responsibility). If the COCOM is saying we're stretched too thin, etc., that is a combatant opinion worthy of serious stress. If the service is saying so, it is because their 'train and equip' funds/assets are being syphoned to the COCOM thus making them less capable (money is 'easy' enough to add with a congressional inject, but adding trained troops/procurring equipment takes considerable time and isn't by nature flexible enough to keep up with an engaged COCOM's needs)
On the other hand, the Strat/Op/Tactical reserve necessary to give the services flexibility is cost prohibitive and would be seriously attacked by the 'budget cutters' immediately in favor of their pet programs.
so, you see peeb, much depends on who is saying what when it comes to analysis.

In the end, DOD is probably not the right tool to put another country right, but short of a Goldwater-Nichols II type legislative effort that requires the Interagency to become as Joint as DOD, DOD becomes the most readily available tool.

Mitch,
Sorry for the rant. I'll give up the comments section for Lent!

Posted by: fingers at March 3, 2006 08:49 AM

Damp, drizzly weather in the month of May?? DAMN! Is FEMA prepared? Does Michael Chertoff know? And what if the ballon runs out of water?? Will Al Gore survive? I want my own debit card too, y'know. And where's the coffee? Who's making the damn coffee?? And don't give me that Folger's crap either, Valerie. And you! YOU! Berg!! Quit throwing nuts at the monkeys. This is a zoo, dammit, not an asylum. Didn't you see the poll? Says right there. In the paper. Read it. Me, I can't tell the difference. Thank you, Valerie. Where was I? Oh. Never mind that. Ruth! RUTH!! Wake up, sweetheart. It's your turn for questions. Have some coffee, dear. What's the frequency, Kenneth? Find out if David's got any more of that good good thing, will ya? Yo! You're the man. What?? Oh, yeah. Berg, you're a slavering... wait. What's slavering mean? Is that a word? It is? Okay. Berg! You're a slavering racist fearmonger right-wing fastest thug. How's that? Oh. Well, I meant fascist thug. He'll know what I meant. He's the fastest fascist thug in the world!! Get it? Ha! That's pretty good, dontcha think?? And yeah...what? Yeah. And you know Bush lied and people died, Berg. All that. No oil for blood. Huh? Oh. No blood for oil. I get it. I knew that. The Halle Burton thing again. Didn't she win an Oscar? And furthermore, Berg, Iraq's a failed quaqmire with no water for the balloons. We told you so. Admit it. There's a civil war failure in Iraq and Canada has better drugs because we're not inspecting every container. Bush lied. And Dick Cheney shot the pope in Russia. It's a culture of corruption and all you do is move the goats....ghosts!! Goalposts. You're being unfair and that's not fair. You call this COFFEE?? I told you -- one scoop, one water. Lotsa cream. Now, Berg, you have to quit saying things that make everybody mad and hurts their feelings. You are causing a civil war in Iraq, scaring the zoo monkeys, and we are losing too many balloons over the Atlantic, which is out of water. And now it's gonna be damp and drizzly in May. It's all Bush's fault and you know it but you are unfair and a Catholic from North Dakota, which polls show is above South Dakota, where they make the balloons.

Have you no decency, Berg? Have you no decency at all? Al Gore won the popular vote. It was just about sex! Get over it. We support the troops but not the missing. Mission. Whatever...

Posted by: Eracus at March 3, 2006 02:57 PM

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie M*A*S*H in which Trapper John and Hawkeye finally succeed in pushing Frank Burns over the edge. The straight-jacketed Maj. Burns is taken away in a jeep, talking to himself.

Posted by: angryclown at March 3, 2006 03:21 PM

Liar. It was some angry clown in an ambulance and it wasn't a movie.

Posted by: Eracus at March 3, 2006 04:38 PM

Kermit puzzled "Can anyone explain to me what the Hell this is supposed to mean?"
Eracus elucidated. Well done, sir (or ma'am, don't want to be sexist).

Posted by: Kermit at March 3, 2006 06:34 PM
hi