It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

[Ramo]

Glenn Greenwald = Hack whose best and only (as far as I can ever tell) logical arguements are the fine art of strawman and ad-hominem.

I figured I'ld let this one play out a bit and let someone else post. But sure as the sun rises I knew immediately as soon as I heard of this story the inevitable response would be kill the messenger memes from leftistan. Not surprising or for that matter imaginitive.

Huh? I never attacked their characters. I contested their claim that they're disinterested observers who have no intellectual stake in Bush's policies. And that was a small part of my post. The only ad hominem here is yours regarding Greenwald.

I have to say that attributing "kill the messager" wrt war reporting to the left is rich given the recent Scott Thomas Beauchamp outrage.

[chequita guevara]

Re: It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

Originally posted by Patroklos
But, this should of course be taken with a grain of salt.

The left has been trying to downplay the credentials of these guys on the news and radio all day, but they have not found any traction. They are of the same house.

Actually, the reason the left has been pissed is because every program these charlatans have been on have called them critics of the President and antiwar. They have never been antiwar and their only criticism of the President is that he hasn't gone far enough. Other than that, they are saying nothing new that they haven't said for five years. In fact, one of them was one of the people who signed off on the neoCon letter to the President telling him that he should invade Iraq.

You righties are such tools.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Glenn Greenwald = Hack

Actually, what Glenn is very good at is pointing out what liars people are, by comparing what they say today with either well documented facts or with their own words. In case and point, Glenn went back through five years of these two "journalists" and showed how from 2002 on, they have been completely in support of the war and the President. A far cry from the claim they make that they are antiwar critics. Glenn is in fact one of the best exposers of hypocrisies and lies out there.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Agathon


They aren't paying for it.

They are sure as hell paying more for it than Pelosi, Kennedy, or Bush are.


As for staying or getting out. There comes a point in time that we can't do anymore than we are and if the Iraqies can't stand up and go beyond Sunni-Shia differences or find some way to go about their own ways without constant boodletting than maybe we should leave, find some way to contain them in Iraq, break the country up or some combination of the three. If no groups are willing to live together in the same country than we can't force them. Allow the country to break apart if it has to. It was artifical in the first place.

[chequita guevara]

It's about to get worse. We're about to alienate our only friends in Iraq, the Kurds, by letting the Turks have their way with them. At this point, it begins to make more sense that Bush is deliberately trying to cause Chaos in the region.

You know, he does believe in a fundamentalist sect that believes that Armageddon will be brought about by total war in the ME. I hate to think it, but it's beginning to seem plausible.

[Kuciwalker]

About as plausible as communism, I'll give you.

[Kataphraktoi]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've told you prople a dozen times, minimum, that I talk to Iraq veterans all the time, many returning to Iraq.
They all say the same, don't stop until it's done.
I'll listen to them over anybody else.

And do they have any particular ideas on how we might do that when tours are already being extended and repeated far more than anticipated, recruitment is falling short of its goals, and even the Pentagon says that, by April of next year, the military will be stretched to its breaking point?

I meet the same guys Sloww -- I work with the military. And, sure enough, they say "don't stop til it's done." But when asked, "even if that means that you, personally, are going to spend most of the next decade in Iraq?" they tend to have somewhat more ... circumspect ... answers.

[Patroklos]

It's about to get worse. We're about to alienate our only friends in Iraq, the Kurds, by letting the Turks have their way with them.

Oh che, you are a poster boy for the "oh my god things better got to **** or I am ****ed" crowd.

Back to the article, yes the gains are not all encompassing, but they are important. It is funny watching the leftist crowd cannabilize each other here. Defeat is your only option

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you really think that the issue with the Turks is NOT going to cause a great deal of more problems? Really?!

[Lancer]

The Turks owned Iraq before, maybe they want the job again? If we swap em non kurdish Iraq for the kurdish part of Turkey, (they do this for oil) then we set up an independant kurdish state which immediatly starts attacking Iran to get the 1/3 of Kurdistan they own, leaving Iran with a major headache thank you very much, and we bring our boys home. The iron boot of Turkish oppression brings peace to Iraq, and everybody who is anybody is happy.

There, one paragraph, all the mid east's problems solved.

Next!

[Bosh]

The whole (rather stupid) arguement in favor of the surge was that it would clamp down on the violence long enough to give the government enough breathing to deal with the political issues that caused all of the violence in the first place. But there is absolutely no sign that there is any progress on the political side of things whatsoever.

The main thing that the surge will do is ensure that the US Army will be in a massive world of hurt manpower wise come 2009...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

On the other hand, we have the opinion of someone in uniform, and in the know:

Iraq is failing, Bush nominee says

Admiral urges caution from U.S.

August 1, 2007

BY WILLIAM ROBERTS

BLOOMBERG NEWS

WASHINGTON -- The Iraqi government is failing and the United States must plan cautiously for a withdrawal, Adm. Michael Mullen, President George W. Bush's nominee to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday.

"It's important that we sustain a capability to fight Al Qaeda, that we not let Iraq implode from an overall security standpoint, and that in this transition we give the Iraqis an opportunity to both lead from a security standpoint as well as politically," Mullen said.

"I do think we will be there for years, not months, but I don't see it on a permanent basis," Mullen, 60, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We must consider our next moves very carefully."

Mullen, now chief of naval operations, was nominated June 28 by Bush to replace Marine Corps General Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, called Mullen outstanding and "more than up to the task."

Mullen urged lawmakers to delay conclusions about what to do in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there, report in September on progress made since the United States added about 30,000 troops. That brought the force in Iraq to about 160,000.

"Security is better. Not great, but better," Mullen told senators.

"It's vital that we hear what they have to say, particularly in the areas of economics and politics."

Confirmations expected

Political compromise between warring Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd factions hasn't been sufficient, and the United States must continue to press their leaders to reach a political settlement, he said.

"Failure to achieve meaningful political reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment," Mullen told the committee.

Democrats and Republicans pressed Mullen on the quality of planning for a U.S. withdrawal that Pentagon officials fear may be just as dangerous for U.S. forces as the invasion.

"We will withdraw from Iraq, and we will certainly do it almost regardless of what we do this year with this president, when we change presidents," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is running for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination.

The Senate committee's members made clear that that they will approve both Mullen and Gen. James Cartwright, the head of the strategic command whom Bush tapped to be vice chairman, replacing Adm. Edmund Giambastiani.

Levin said the primary challenge for both men would be to "address the crisis in Iraq."

"Iraqi leaders must compromise," said Levin, a leading proponent of measures in Congress that would require U.S. troops to withdraw by April 2008. "The American people want a change in direction."

Pullout vote

The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on three Iraq measures this week, including a proposal by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., that would start a U.S. withdrawal 60 days after the bill is signed into law without setting a time line for completion.

A separate bipartisan measure, which passed the House Armed Services Committee by a 55-2 vote, would require the Pentagon to brief Congress within 60 days on planning for a narrowed U.S. mission in Iraq and redeployment of troops.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070801/NEWS07/708010361/1001/NEWS

Hmmm...the likely future Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or a couple of conservative hacks fudging their own past statements. Whom to believe, whom to believe...

[Patroklos]

That is not what Mullen said, God the left is grasping for any handhold

What he said was that we should have a plan for withdrawal for when it happens, however that occurs. Obviously, no matter what happens, we will have to withdraw eventually. But especially if, IF, theings deteriorate despite the trend (note you failed to mention his comments on that) in Iraq. Seems prudent doesn't it?

Care to mischaracterize his "more troops won't make a difference" comment now to?

Care to mischaracterize his "more troops won't make a difference" comment now too?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, for all the crowing about "the left", I'm not shocked you didn't link to where the article was in the first place: THE NEW YORK TIMES... that damned liberal media, eh?