Patterico's Pontifications

Amazingly – MSNBC is saying Maliki wants US troops out as soon as possible. Omitted Maliki’s statement that security comes first. Also omitted by MSNBC is that Al queda wants the US out as soon as possible.

Joe - Dallas (3f6913) — 7/19/2008 @ 3:44 pm

“As soon as possible” is one of those vague statements that means everything you want it too… and nothing. All at the same time

SteveG (71dc6f) — 7/19/2008 @ 3:55 pm

I read speculation that Maliki is talking about withdrawal to Iraqis to reduce support for the Sadrists in the upcoming provincial elections, while at the same time telling Americans that conditions on the ground will dictate when American troops withdraw. For example, see this Washington Post article:

In recent weeks, Maliki has spoken in strong terms to domestic and regional audiences, only to have his remarks softened for U.S. consumption by his own advisers or U.S. spokesmen. After he said last month that the negotiations were at a “dead end,” officials in Baghdad and Washington explained that Maliki was referring to early U.S. drafts that had since been updated.

If so, Maliki proves he is an accomplished politician and diplomat.

DRJ (92ca6f) — 7/19/2008 @ 3:56 pm

Maliki had better watch his back. In the past year Hussein O has flipped and flopped on a hundred or so positions and there is a list of 72 documented lies he’s told along the way. Don’t expect delivery of anything Hussein promises. He’s more dangerous to the people of Iraq than the Hussein they just hanged.

Scrapiron (d671ab) — 7/19/2008 @ 5:08 pm

Many are missing the latest BHO course change. He said a billion and one times he was about “bringing the troops home.” Now? He talks of shifting assets from Iraq to Afghanistan.

While I fault W for trying to win and keep the peace in Afghanistan on the cheap, it is vomit-inducing to see/hear BHO tack to the right of the current Afghan strategery. He’s right (pun intended).

Where is the outcry over BHO’s latest perfidy? He said everyone would be home in 12 months. Later 16. Now? “I need to consult with logistic experts.”

Somebody please explain to me why it is that our press is given special constitutional rights?

Ed (59b337) — 7/19/2008 @ 5:22 pm

And checkmate…

Maliki is telling the U.S. to get the hell out of his country because the surge worked, but the U.S. and Bush and McCain want to stay which means maybe the surge didn’t work, because if it had worked they would leave, but they can’t leave because the surge has worked so well that they have to stay because it hasn’t worked even though it actually did work because it didn’t and maybe Maliki needs the U.S. out so that regularly scheduled civil war caused by the U.S troops can finally continue, which means the troops have to stay. Hey, we won!!

Mission Accomplished!

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 5:52 pm

regularly scheduled civil war caused by the U.S troops

“Civil war” means a conflict between opposing factions of the same population. You cannot claim that Iranian and Syrian citizens encroaching to do the fighting for one side is a “civil war”. It is, more accurately, an invasion.

Just because NBCBS is referring to it as a Civil War doesn’t make it so.

But hey, thanks for playing. We’ll mail you your consolation prize.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 5:56 pm

And checkmate…

Do you grow your own shrooms?

Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/19/2008 @ 5:56 pm

You cannot claim that Iranian and Syrian citizens encroaching to do the fighting for one side is a “civil war”.

Who the hell needs those guys (cept for guns and bombs) when you have at least three factions in Iraq who’ve despised one another for centuries: Sunni, Shai and Kurd. And there’s even internecine fighting within the Shai all by themselves.

Even if they didn’t have the guns and bombs from Iran they’d probably be killing each other with rocks.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:09 pm

Who the hell needs those guys (cept for guns and bombs) when you have at least three factions in Iraq who’ve despised one another for centuries: Sunni, Shai and Kurd.

And if it weren’t for those two actually being involved, you might be right about it being a civil war. But since they are involved, it isn’t, and you’re not.

See how that works? “If” is the biggest two-letter word in the English language.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:15 pm

We caused the civil war by invading . . .
and then we interrupted it by staying . . .
and now we have to leave so that it may continue . . .
because Maliki wants to increase the violence, and wants to destabilize his country, but he doesn’t want us to be in the way . . .

Peter, Peter, peyote eater

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:16 pm

peyote eater

NTTAWWT

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:19 pm

“Shai”? As in Shai-Hulud, the name given the giant sandworms by the desert-dwelling Fremen of planet Arrakis in the DUNE series?
Very clever, Petey. You realize that the setting in Dune is a projection of the Middle East region of Earth onto a planetary scale, so you made a sly reference.
Maybe you aren’t as think as we dumb you are after all.

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:28 pm

We caused the civil war by invading . . .
and then we interrupted it by staying . . .
and now we have to leave so that it may continue . . .
because Maliki wants to increase the violence, and wants to destabilize his country, but he doesn’t want us to be in the way . . .

No of course not. The surge worked so the troops can leave. But if they were taken out that would mean increased violence and instability and probably serious genocide, so they have to stay.

And make sure that doesn’t happen.

Since the surge worked.

and the Iraq war was won…

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:30 pm

“Maliki is telling the U.S. to get the hell out of his country because the surge worked”

Peter – Is that the surge that Obama said wouldn’t work?

Do you have the quote where Maliki says get the hell out as well? The initial Spiegel story mentions something about assuming continued progress, perhaps you missed that part.

Hey, we’re already taking troops out, so maybe Obama can claim partial credit, but Bush said the surge was only temporary to begin with so I don’t think so.

Eventually Obama will be right about something on foreign policy. It’s tough to maintain a record of being 100% wtong indefinitely.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:35 pm

Very clever, Petey. You realize that the setting in Dune is a projection of the Middle East region of Earth onto a planetary scale, so you made a sly reference.

Natch.

You are so fu8king not kidding when you call yourself ICY TRUTH (I-see-truth). Shazam!!

You should put a little James Brown exclamation at the end of that like you just done conjured up some mystical vision and it’s touched you in a very ddep way:

Icy truth…Unnnnnh!!

Icy truth….Ka Pow!!

Icy truth…hot tub!!

Icy truth…AARRRGHH!!!

Icy truth….HAAA YAAA!!!

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:40 pm

[A] spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:41 pm

Damn Peter, as SEK has said, you gotta bring more game if you wanna rule the intertubes, dude.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:42 pm

“And checkmate…”

The situation you describe would be a “stalemate”, if it in fact existed.

fat tony (601b8d) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:42 pm

but the U.S. and Bush and McCain want to stay which means maybe the surge didn’t work

Um, where the hell has a single Republican, much less Bush or McCain argue that?

We want to stay because we think we need more time to quell the violence down further and to ensure it doesn’t rise back up again (as well as to prevent Iran from just walking in and exerting its control over the Shiite areas, which, I hate to say it, should be considered and factored in when Maliki makes a statement like this).

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:46 pm

But if they were taken out that would mean increased violence and instability and probably serious genocide, so they have to stay.

Just like they have done in Japan and Germany and South Korea. We stayed in those places, and they are among the most democratic and free and prosperous nations on the planet, compared with places we didn’t stay, such as Vietnam and North Korea and Somalia.

Now, which nation would you rather have Iraq turn out to be like: Japan or Somalia?

And someone with a name that is used as a euphemism for the male sexual member is in no position to criticize the names chosen by others. Penis.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:47 pm

Is that the surge that Obama said wouldn’t work?

Yes that very same temporary surge within a endless “no timetable for withdrawal ever” war.

It’s tough to maintain a record of being 100% wtong indefinitely.

I’d have to agree with you there. It is tough to maintain a record of being 100% wtong indefinitely. I hate being wtong. But when I am wtong I’m a big enough man to say “Hey look, I was wtong.”

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:50 pm

Who the hell needs those guys (cept for guns and bombs) when you have at least three factions in Iraq who’ve despised one another for centuries: Sunni, Shai and Kurd. And there’s even internecine fighting within the Shai all by themselves.

Isn’t it at least somewhat of a contradiction to say that and then to say a civil war was caused by U.S. troops? (and an actual civil war would have resulted in a whole lot more than ~100k dead out of a country of 30 million).

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:51 pm

wtong

wow, grammar police – always the resort of someone who has a strong argument.

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:53 pm

or, more accurately – spelling-Nazi.

But I’ve always liked grammar police better.

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:54 pm

The situation you describe would be a “stalemate”, if it in fact existed.

Not for those who said the war was a big mistake..

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:54 pm

Another Ooop’s for the Lame Stream Media. Either the translator lied or was paid off to change Miliki’s quote. Maliki has corrected them but will they print the correction?

Scrapiron (d671ab) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:54 pm

Not for those who said the war was a big mistake.

Who knew after complaining about our Iraq policy for 15 years, the left would look back later and long for Saddam Hussein to still be in power

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:57 pm

or, more accurately – spelling-Nazi.

But I’ve always liked grammar police better.

Tell it to the typo detail here. I’m just playing. But these guys never ever let a typo go by…I gotta get an earful every single time. Along with some major insults. But this is the lot of one who prefers boards where not everyone agrees all the damned time.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 6:58 pm

(Hey Icy Truth come back…I was just joking around…)

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:00 pm

But these guys never ever let a typo go by

I haven’t seen it during my short time here, but if that’s true, okay.

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:01 pm

Not for those who said the war was a big mistake..

These would be the same people who were arguing that the US should not defend itself against the Soviets during the Cold War. The same ones who claimed that the terrorists could be stopped by sending in the FBI instead of the 10th Mountain Division.

Just because somebody “claims” something doesn’t make them right, either then or in the harsh light of hindsight.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:09 pm

Drummer wrotes:

Now, which nation would you rather have Iraq turn out to be like: Japan or Somalia?

I don’t know if that apples to either of those countries. Once Japan surrendered there were no warring religions or sects or what have you. And it would seem obvious that a nation that pulverized by war (like Germany), would require a security and safety force, funds, economic and infrastructure investment, retraining. Education in democratic principles. In short the Marshall plan.

Perhaps…perhaps…if once Iraq had been secured a similar robust Marshall plan had been put in in place and the rioting was contained and the lawlessness neutralized, Electricity restored, education hospitals infrastructure etc, the Iraqi army not entirely dissolved. Maybe a lot of blood shed might’ve been avoided on both sides. What a criminal cock up. You gotta admit….

I say get most of the U.S. troops out (leave like 50,000) and get a mutlinational UN mission in there to take over.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:17 pm

Another Ooop’s for the Lame Stream Media. Either the translator lied or was paid off to change Miliki’s quote. Maliki has corrected them but will they print the correction?

I thought someone from the administration got on the phone and told him to shut his pie hole and not embarrass you-know-who (who’s) with such stupid independent talk. Who the hell does he think he is anyway? The Prime minister of a sovereign nation? Pshaw…

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:22 pm

Once Japan surrendered there were no warring religions or sects or what have you.

Japan didn’t have troops from China and Korea coming in to stir up violence, either. If we had responded to those incursions in Iraq when they were first noticed, we wouldn’t be in the kind of situations where people like you can claim that we need to run away.

and get a mutlinational UN mission in there to take over.

Because they have been so efficient in Kosovo and Darfur, right?

What a criminal cock up. You gotta admit….

No, I don’t. Mistakes have been made, but we have won this war with fewer casualties taken and less money spent than any other war we have ever fought. We would have to be in Iraq for the next few centuries to equal the casualties from Vietnam. We would have to spend twice as much to match the cost-equivalent spending of the Marshall Plan. We lost more in a single day at Normandy than we have in more than five years in Iraq.

In fact, the casualty rate in Iraq is still lower than the “training accident” rate during Clinton’s eight years. There are fewer American casualties per 100K in Iraq than there are in DC, NYC, and Detroit.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:33 pm

I thought someone from the administration got on the phone and told him to shut his pie hole and not embarrass you-know-who (who’s) with such stupid independent talk.

Peter, do you think it wouldn’t have been obvious to Maliki before making that statement that supporting Obama’s plan would be problematic for McCain. It goes against what Bush has said, so if it were merely as easy as Bush getting on the phone and telling him to shut up, why would he have said it in the first place?

Anon (a2601e) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:34 pm

I thought someone from the administration got on the phone…

“Thought”? I doubt it. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that no real thought actually went into making that comment.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 7:35 pm

Peter typifies the combination of bold opinion coupled with utter ignorance. The quintessential Democratic Iraq policy.

I especially get a huge giggle about the fatuous call for a “multinational” UN force. Nothing could better show Peter’s utter ignorance of military affairs. It was a “multinational UN force” that watched Szebrinca fall and do nothing with its inhabitants were slaughtered. And it has been a “multinational” force that has fallen down on the job in portions of Afghanistan.

It is because people like Peter typify the juvenile Democratic party that an Obama administration will be disasterous to this nation.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:03 pm

Hey Peret, see what I did there with the “r” and the “t”, they’re right next to each other on the keyboard, makes you sound like a parrot, which is what you do with the mindless lib talking points. Heh, I make myself laugh. I should do typos more often.

If the democrats had any balls, they would have voted for Murtha’s original withdrawal proposal when the republicans gave them the chance. What did they do instead. They fucking ran like the castratos they are because they didn’t want to be the ones to pull the plug. Our troops could be safe on Okinawa right now if your leaders had any spine, but no, they never want to pay any price if it involves their potential political standing.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:04 pm

I never understood the argument for “Okinawa”. I mean, London is closer and there isn’t this ginormous nation between England and Iraq that will deny overflight rights when we need them in a hurry. Plus, there isn’t the hassle with language difficulties…

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:14 pm

(Hey Icy Truth come back…I was just joking around…)

— I’m not insulted. Doggy said it was time to go outside and chase the tennis ball, so out we went.

I even caught it a few times, but all of the misses aren’t my fault; she throws like a girl.

But these guys never ever let a typo go by…I gotta get an earful every single time.

— I try to only do it when there’s a creative angle to explore (exploit).

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:22 pm

#38 – SPQR

And it has been a “multinational” force that has fallen down on the job in portions of Afghanistan.

— The German contingent has standing orders not to fire unless first fired upon. They might as well be neutered and then ordered to make babies.

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:32 pm

“They might as well be neutered and then ordered to make babies.”

I thought that is what the French are doing in Lebanon while they watch Hezbollah rearm.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:40 pm

daleyrocks/Icy Truth, this is why the use of the phrase “multinational UN force” marks the person who uttered it as a moron.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:42 pm

“I never understood the argument for “Okinawa”.”

I don’t think many people understand Murtha these days, except MorOn.org.

daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:43 pm

#28 – Anon

Who knew after complaining about our Iraq policy for 15 years, the left would look back later and long for Saddam Hussein to still be in power

— There’s a lot for the Left to admire there. The hippie moustache; a political structure where the government controls and runs everything; affirmative action (one-third of the people receiving preferential treatment over the other two-thirds of the population). You could almost say that he’s their model for running the country . . . just like Hitler was for him.

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:45 pm

I thought that is what the French are doing in Lebanon while they watch Hezbollah rearm.

— I thought they were there to get a tan and buy cigarettes on the cheap.

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:48 pm

Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

It’s one thing to plan a withdrawal once the situation is stable, but on March 31, 2008 the defeatists were proclaiming Basra lost to Iranian backed militias, hardly a point to call victory unless you were looking for defeat.

Neo (cba5df) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:49 pm

this is why the use of the phrase “multinational UN force” marks the person who uttered it as a moron.

— ‘Multinational UN farce‘ is more like it. So much of what the UN does amounts to the equivalent of an old man shaking his fist at kids riding their bikes across his lawn.

Icy Truth (572ed3) — 7/19/2008 @ 8:55 pm

SPQR open up the dictionary and look up the words “tiresome” and “blowhard”.

Thx.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:05 pm

“I say get most of the U.S. troops out…”

I agree, and they should exit via Iran.

The campaign in Iraq seems to be winding down. Time to tackle the next state sponsor of terrorism.

Dave Surls (9739f4) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:10 pm

SPQR open up the dictionary and look up the words “tiresome” and “blowhard”.

Wow, Peter, that’s a great picture of you (and the hair looks like it is growing back nicely), but what are you doing with the blow-up doll and all that lubricant?

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:27 pm

Peter, how about you try educating yourself on a topic before demonstrating your utter ignorance of it by giving out vacuous opinions.

“tiresome” and “blowhard” are really better definitions of the twits you are copying idiotic talking points from. Although probably “dangerously stupid” is the best fit – as who else would be enamored of the long discredited idea that “multinational” confers some sort of supernatural moral superiority that effortlessly and bloodlessly defeats all those forces of darkness.

Vapid.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:27 pm

I agree, and they should exit via Iran.

On their way to Afghanistan by the most direct routing.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:27 pm

After all, when has any force that includes the French been defeated?

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:28 pm

After all, when has any force that includes the French been defeated?

The only force that the French have managed to take on successfully by themselves was an unarmed trawler manned by Greenpeace activists.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:33 pm

funny, the first thing i thought when i saw this was that maliki had been misquoted/misunderstood. honestly, does anyone think that this guy is that fucking stupid as to throw the bush admin under the bus on a whim? yeah lets piss off the guy who holds my country together by supporting the asshole who wanted it destroyed

gabriel (180095) — 7/19/2008 @ 9:41 pm

latest news blurb i saw was that Maliki is claiming he was misunderstood…..

/much ado about nothing….. aka politics as usual.

redc1c4 (ae7a64) — 7/19/2008 @ 11:18 pm

Yes – I think this post header needs an UPDATE

See:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

++++++++++++
But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
++++++++++++

jim2 (845123) — 7/20/2008 @ 7:14 am

Is Peter another sockpuppet special from previous postings? Sounds a lot like Harpy, or perhaps Big Island Don Ho.

Dmac (416471) — 7/20/2008 @ 8:34 am

This Obama creature is the most divisive figure to roll down the pike in some time. The fantasy trip marches on. Ed at Hot Air has historical stats:

Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient. Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania

Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/20/2008 @ 9:47 am

Obama is having a productive effect in Iraq and he’s not even president yet. Maliki’s liking his “time horizon “plan and what the hell would that guy know about Iraq, right? I hope he (Maliki) cleared it with Patreaus and McCain (the supreme experts on the situation on the ground in Iraq ) and even the White House distributed an email of the the story to the press. Someone needs to tell them that, in spite of appearances, Bush is still in office.

honestly, does anyone think that this guy is that fucking stupid as to throw the bush admin under the bus on a whim?

I think it’s called the Musharraf approach to dealing with idiots. Smile a lot and agree to everything like you’re a cab driver in NYC and then throw Bush under a bus like it’s going out of style.

Anyhow, check it: If Obama is this good now, ,imagine how good he’ll be when he’s actually president. Incredibly, he even recognizes that the countries that really hold great potential danger for the U.S> in the fight against AQ are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is there anything the man cannot do??.

Scratch that UN Multinational force, SPQR, (mind if I just call you Espy?) and replace with NATO. Thx.

Anyhow it looks like you took my advice and did crack open a dictionary. Unfortunately you seemed to have gotten stuck in the V’s (vacuous, vapid…). Hmmm. Well, at least when you take the SAT in a couple of years it’ll help you out a bit. But really do look “tiresome” and “windbag” or was it “blowhard”? Look up both I guess.

Drummer pecks out with one hand:

Wow, Peter, that’s a great picture of you (and the hair looks like it is growing back nicely), but what are you doing with the blow-up doll and all that lubricant?

See Espy, Drummer knows how to be a little entertaining with his insults (even if he is typing with one hand while looking in the mirror), you’re just monotonous.

Anyhow, I’m looking at my daily “time horizon” and it looks like I’ve got stuff to do (brunch, fix up the apartment if you really want to know), so I’ll see you guys later.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 9:48 am

“Anyhow, check it: If Obama is this good now, ,imagine how good he’ll be when he’s actually president.”

(“Because he’s just gooder than all the rest of us, and we are the people that we’ve been waiting for! For change we cannot believe! For hopeytude that cannot be denied! For minds that are already wasted!”).

“…it looks like I’ve got stuff to do (brunch, fix up the apartment if you really want to know)…”

(“Dad said that he’s going to cut off my car privileges if I don’t clean my room NOW, but he’s not the boss of me, and anyhow that Midnight Showing of The Dark Knight’s gonna be soo awesome!”).

Dmac (416471) — 7/20/2008 @ 10:20 am

Peter, yes I am stuck in the “v” section because so much of what you write is vapid and vacuous. And still is.

“Scratch that UN Multinational force, SPQR, (mind if I just call you Espy?) and replace with NATO. Thx.”

By the way, you still are showing your ignorance of current events. The force in Afghanistan includes “multinational” NATO elements … and many of those elements are letting us down by not getting the job down. This was mentioned up thread which is why your comment is soooo hilarious.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:17 pm

Personally, I think Maliki just made a fatal mistake. The lefties like Kevin Drum are making a big argument that the statement had three parts and could not have been misquoted. They may be right. I think Maliki was playing Iraqi politics and he has no idea about how the Democrats )and Europe) would like to ditch Iraq and don’t care what happens to him or the country. He got himself in the middle of the US election and he does not understand how unserious the Democrats are.

This is a big story and could hurt McCain badly unless Maliki makes a more adept retreat than I think he is capable of. Maybe Obama will make a mistake to overshadown this but it could be the Tet offensive of the Iraq story. Maliki thinks all Americans want him to succeed and all Americans want to win the war. He’s wrong and is learning just how wrong.

Mike K (2cf494) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:18 pm

This kind of mistake is what I mean. I think the WaPo is getting tired of him.

Mike K (2cf494) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:21 pm

Check it. The same crowd that chants ‘Bushitler’ without fear of retaliation is too stupid to see that someone doesn’t give a crap about their vote in November. Happy idiots, right off a cliff.

The same crowd that begs for citizens rights decries the ‘lawlessness’ of the current admin and the fraudulence of Faux News. Obots have an affirmative- action neophyte puppet car salesman sent in by the Chicago mob and everyone feels that news coverage… all of a sudden… is fair and balanced. Peter, you’re stupid.

And this post’s for you. While you still can read it in English. You ready to give up your brunches and Home Depot days to help the government’s roster of deadbeats ? Enjoy it if it happens; it will be gone by 2012. You haven’t even tasted greed yet.

Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:26 pm

I’m going to have to get myself one of these do-it-yourself diplomacy kits. All the kids in Congress have them these days – Pelosi, Obama, etc. Just get elected to some office and instantly you’ve got the same powers as the President (without all those nasty downsides of executive leadership, like for instance, accountability).

redherkey (9f5961) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:35 pm

redherkey, not to mention that the usual Democratic diplomacy kit seems to include lying about what the Bush administration’s actual diplomatic efforts are.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 12:43 pm

The force in Afghanistan includes “multinational” NATO elements …

Look SPQRSTUVWXYZ, if you don’t read carefully you’re going to do badly on those SAT’s. You’ve got to look at what the words say very carefully and the context in which they’re written. That clues you on what’s going on. It’s called reading comprehension.

The force in Iraq….Iraq, I-R-A-Q, not the Afghanistan in Iraq (there is no Afghanistan in Iraq btw) should be composed of NATO troops. Got it now?

For your next assignment please look up the words “dense” and “dork”. You can find both of them in the D’s section of the dicitionary.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 4:14 pm

The force in Iraq….Iraq, I-R-A-Q, not the Afghanistan in Iraq (there is no Afghanistan in Iraq btw) should be composed of NATO troops.

Why? Do you even know why NATO exists? Or (let’s start with the most basic question) even what NATO stands for?

Next you can explain how a nation on a different continent would be their responsibility.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 4:26 pm

Peter, you remain the complete moron. The “multinational” NATO force in Afghanistan is failing to get the job done.

That’s the point. That you are freakin’ clueless about these issues. That you keep repeating moronic talking points of “multinational” without the slightest clue that such forces have not been successful. Specifically in Afghanistan where the Taliban has been resurgent because it has gained strength in the shelter of regions that have been half-heartedly patrolled by NATO units.

You keep repeating this “multinational” horse shit because you are too stupid to realize that this left-wing talking point of the myth of the moral superiority of “multinational” clusterfucks has been long debunked.

So if you ever actually get an IQ above room temp, you’ll quit with the pathetic insults and you’ll realize that your commentary continues to show you lack any command of the topic you so boldly demonstrate your ignorance of.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 4:46 pm

The “multinational” NATO force in Afghanistan is failing to get the job done.

Of course it is. How could it ever succeed when the mission was degraded for fighting the War on Terror in the Iraq. The wrong country.

So if you ever actually get an IQ above room temp, you’ll quit with the pathetic insults and you’ll realize that your commentary continues to show you lack any command of the topic you so boldly demonstrate your ignorance of.

I beg to differ and if you don’t like the insults then perhaps you should stop making them the central point of each and every comment you make. Hypocrite.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 4:54 pm

Peter, you can beg to differ all you want, but you remain unable to coherently differ because you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Your attempt to claim that the multinational force in Afghanistan has fallen down on the job because of the supposed focus on Iraq is yet another time when you boldly make claims that don’t match reality.

The NATO forces in Afghanistan have fallen short because of the failure of their own nations to adequately train, equip and provision them. And to give them adequate rules of engagement or support their mission. Not the US’s engagement in Iraq. And the British mission in Basra in Iraq shows exactly what I’m talking about – and you are clueless about – as their own time in Basra resulted in similar problems with the Shiite militias. Again because of inadequate commitment to mission, tactics of avoiding confrontation rather than succeeding in the mission.

Peter, you remain just completely without the most basic knowledge of the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. And your stubborn insistence on repeated long discredited talking points is just hilarious.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:00 pm

Do you even know why NATO exists? Or (let’s start with the most basic question) even what NATO stands for?

Yes and yes.

While you still can read it in English. You ready to give up your brunches and Home Depot days to help the government’s roster of deadbeats ? Enjoy it if it happens; it will be gone by 2012. You haven’t even tasted greed yet.

Pray tell Vermont, can you point out who these parasites are that will devour the United States from the inside out and steal its language and its wealth?

Would it be the Soldiers coming back to the U.S. who were used by the Republicans for a senseless and strategically flawed war? Needing proper VA treatment for Post traumatic stress and not getting it? Or wanting to pursue a higher degree through a GI Bill that the McCain and Bush voted against? Maybe it’ll be the people who lose there jobs due to the unrestrained greed and gaming of the system by the Sub prime mortgage companies? or because big oil is a pig that needs to be fed 40 Billion dollars every three months? Or how about people who can no longer afford healthcare or companies that go under because they can no longer afford healthcare for their workers or what about kids who need healthcare, but can’t get it because s-chip got blocked by the Republicans. But of course, Bear Stearns and Indymac can be bailed out thanks to the generosity of the American people…

Because Capitalism is Socialism for the rich, but the sacred FU-but-that’s-the-way-the-cookie- crumbles free market is allowed to mess up everyone else.

Those parasites will all need

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:08 pm

Yes and yes.

Not according to the nonsense you’ve been posting to date.

Pretend I’m from Missouri. Show me.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:09 pm

Now you are lying, Peter. There is GI Bill benefits for soldiers, the bill that the administration opposed increased benefits for all soldiers when the administration wanted to delay the higher benefits to encourage reenlistment. The SCHIP program was not blocked, that’s another lie on your part, expansion of it to “kids” as old at 25 years old was opposed.

Indymac was not bailed out either. You are just full of made up crap today, Peter.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:11 pm

Pray tell Vermont, can you point out who these parasites are that will devour the United States from the inside out and steal its language and its wealth?

That would be the Democrats.

HTH.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:14 pm

You need to figure it out, Peter. Either you are incompetent or you are dishonest.

Frankly, I don’t care much which it is. But you need to either get better at facts, or a better liar.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:18 pm

The NATO forces in Afghanistan have fallen short because of the failure of their own nations to adequately train, equip and provision them. And to give them adequate rules of engagement or support their mission. Not the US’s engagement in Iraq.

Holy Crap. you’re out of your mind. Who did this to you? You are deeply deeply delusional and have come unstuck from reality. I pity you. Sheesh…

How much has been spent on Iraq so far? How much has been spent on Afghanistan? How many troops are in Iraq? How many are in Afghanistan? How much intellectual capital has been spent on Iraq vs. Afghanistan?

You seem to think that every single criticism of this administration has been effectively discredited and neatly put behind them, when very little has been discredited. The war is still a huge strategic and geopolitical disaster that has destabilized the region and allowed the Taliban and AQ to re-energize itself and regroup in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border. Yet, you blame NATO? Who do you think friggin’ runs NATO?? The United States!!

SPQR you are deeply and profoundly and frighteningly blinkered. Really…who did this to you?

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:26 pm

Either you are incompetent or you are dishonest.

Screw you jack. Don’t use my comments against me. I believe I was the one who once pointed out to you that you were either a liar or an idiot. I’m afraid now I know which one of those you are.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:30 pm

Peter, you really have no command of logic either do you? Comparing the amounts spent is not a rebuttal to any point I’ve made. Not least because I pointed out that the British efforts in Basra were unsuccessful for the same reasons that Afghanistan’s regions under the control of NATO units have seen a resurgence of the Taliban.

The rest of your comment is just strawmen arguments.

By the way, the United States does not “run” NATO. NATO is run by a coalition staff. The United States supplies the head of the command staff, but it does not “run” the militaries of the allies, it does not train the militaries of the allies, it does not appoint the officers of the allies and it does not supply the equipment of the allies.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:30 pm

Peter, what you conveniently forget (misplace) is that the effort in Afghanistan is under NATO auspices; and, that the only force in the field there that can handle the mission, is the US – even though, in your words, it has been starved for resources due to their being diverted to Iraq.
All in all, you’ve created a comprehensive bowl of mush that a vulture would gag on.

Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:32 pm

the bill that the administration opposed increased benefits for all soldiers when the administration wanted to delay the higher benefits to encourage reenlistment.

Thank you for making my point. The GI Bill proposed by Bush and McCain was a joke. I think you spend three years in the military you should have your college education paid for period. Why the hemming and the hawing and the hesitation and the “oh…but the budget deficit” when none of that has mattered to this administtation before. I’ll tell you why, because they needed to (once again) score political points with the rabid wing of the Republican party. McBush had to look all tough and fiscally responsible and he did it against his “brother” soldiers. What a total hypocrite. I would respect him a lot more if he wasn’t sucking on Rush Limbaughs dick or Ann Coulter’s putrid teet all the time.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:36 pm

Another Drew, he clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:36 pm

Peter, no I did not make your point. Your point was a lie. You asserted that troops could not obtain a college education: “Or wanting to pursue a higher degree through a GI Bill that the McCain and Bush voted against? …”.

That’s a lie. The troops have existing generous GI Bill benefits.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:37 pm

That’s a lie. The troops have existing generous GI Bill benefits.

Not to mention programs that help pay for college while still on active duty. (It was paying for 75% back when I was in.)

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:43 pm

Drumwaster, my neighbor – who spent two tours in Iraq as a combat medic – is currently attending nursing school to obtain her RN, on such benefits.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:47 pm

Oops…
“Facts to a Liberal, are like Kryptonite to Superman.”

Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:49 pm

Peter, what you conveniently forget (misplace) is that the effort in Afghanistan is under NATO auspices; and, that the only force in the field there that can handle the mission, is the US – even though, in your words, it has been starved for resources due to their being diverted to Iraq.

Maybe the Bush administration that a proper NATO force was put together that could perform it’s mission properly and decisively.

It could’ve asked for greater commitments of men and supplies and money from the other members as well as from Congress. But they didn’t because fighting a war in a country that has nothing to do with 911 and that had no active programs to build WMDs or true functional WMDs was more important.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:51 pm

Another Drew, in this case I find it hilarious that Peter is so incompetent as to make recklessly false assertions that he should have known would be quickly rebutted.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:51 pm

Peter, you are an idiot. The Bush administration can’t “put together” a NATO force without cooperation from the NATO nations. They can’t force NATO countries to show up. More importantly they can’t force NATO countries to train, equip or properly command their own forces.

If you had any clue about this topic, you’d know that inadequate force commitments, poor equipment and poor training have been complaints about the NATO force in Afghanistan for years.

This is why your comment about the Iraq force needing to be NATO showed your ignorance and incompetence.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:54 pm

Y’all might want to look at my latest post about the Der Spiegel rewrite.

Patterico (cb443b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:57 pm

Patterico, that is pretty interesting. Any pretense about not being in the tank for Obama is gone.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:58 pm

a proper NATO force was put together

Which means what, exactly, Mr. Military Strategist? More American troops? That tends to eliminate the need for those NATO troops you are bragging about.

That invasion – which people like you were arguing against from the very beginning – was to eliminate the Taliban, the so-called government that was supporting, protecting and defending Osama bin Laden’s groups. They succeeded, in spades, and the very first person that got to vote – the first election in Afghanistan EVER – was a woman.

Just because you chase the rats from the kitchen doesn’t mean that the basement can be left unguarded, and that was the mission of those NATO troops you are so eager to allocate, and the mission that is starting to falter without our direct involvement.

So now we have to go back in and pick up the slack on that for those other nations that – even though they have been at peace for fifty years – don’t have the few thousand troops to spare to take care of their mission.

Were you at all aware that since the United States was the one attacked, it is the responsibility of the other NATO members to adequately deploy their own troops to help defend the US, and they have fallen down on that job, as well? Or are you now going to assert that it was all a one-way treaty in the first place?

Lemme guess, Pecker, you’ve never read the NATO charter, either.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 5:59 pm

Peter…
Congress has NO control or authority over NATO deployments. The Administration (as far back as Sec. Rumsfeld) has continually called for NATO to step up to the plate in Afghanistan, repeatedly suggesting that they need to increase their efforts/manpower/logistics/rules-of-engagement (it was reported that after an attack on a German contingent, the German soldiers were quoted as saying they had no authority from their “national command authority” to fire back! What a joke.).

It has been immaterial as to whether of not Iraq has WMD (actual, or programs) since the toppling of the Saddam Regime – we have not been engaged there for that reason since regime change occurred.

What has occurred, is that our forces (and to a lessor extent, those of our Allies in OIF) have been engaged by forces within and from without Iraq, attempting to subvert the attempts of the Iraqi’s to establish a non-totalitarian government that reflects the will of the Iraqi people.

It is not an insignificant program, and it is succeeding – deal with it!

Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:01 pm

Drumwaster, the issue is not whether or not NATO should be in Afghanistan. The issue is Peter’s adherence to the myth that a “multinational” force has some sort of moral superiority by and of itself. That our forces in Iraq “ought” to be replaced by a NATO force.

What we’ve been arguing is Peter’s ignorance of the fact that NATO can’t even deploy the much smaller number of troops needed in Afghanistan. Such that Peter’s policy proposal is just ludicrous.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:01 pm

I’m betting Petey’s foreign policy experience comes from beating his computer at a game of Risk(tm). Once.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:05 pm

#98

I’m betting Petey’s foreign policy experience comes from beating his computer at a game of Risk(tm). Once.

Drumwaster that’s actually more global experience than B-ho’s got. Peter, can you learn a second language, say Spanish, get yerself a racist wife and run for high office?

Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:14 pm

Probably, Drumwaster, since he does not seem to know that the current Secretary-General of NATO is dutch.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:14 pm

You know, Peter, no one makes you write stupid things. It comes, like so many of your ilk like Levi, from your frothing hatreds. You’ve somehow convinced yourself that hating Republicans demonstrates your moral superiority.

But instead, it just shows that your opinions are not rational in origin.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/20/2008 @ 6:28 pm

But Obama was right on the big one: never getting mired in Iraq in the first place.

Mike (800ca1) — 7/21/2008 @ 2:00 am

Drummer beats the drum:

That invasion – which people like you were arguing against from the very beginning – was to eliminate the Taliban

I love it when the right does this. They paint the left with this ridiculous brush because to do otherwise would mean having to admit that liberals and Democrats aren’t the stereotypes they wrongly require them to be and that the right wing pundits feed upon to spew the divisive horseshit and distortion for political gain. I’m disappointed in you D.

I, and many liberals and Democrats, here in Babylon NYC andaround the country wanted nothing better then for AQ and the Taliban to basically be blown off the face of the earth forever. Full stop.

Could it explain the left’s anger and disappointment with this government that that was mission was downgraded for a military adventure that was based on lies and manipulation on a gross scale ino order to, as far as I can see, assuage the blood thirst revenge of one man, who let it sway him from the true business of the nation in effectively dealing with the people responsible for the death of 3000 innocent people trying to earn a living. With all due respect for you r military service, where were you on 911? Or most of the name-calling right wing apologists for failure on this board? I’ll tell you where I was: I was in New York watching the towers burn and then come crashing down.

They [US Troops] succeeded, in spades, and the very first person that got to vote – the first election in Afghanistan EVER – was a woman.

You think that’s a point with me? Hell, although I think attacking a sovereign nation is wrong, I thought maybe the U.S. probably should’ve taken out the Taliban in the 90s when it became known about the barbaric treatment of women and the executions and destruction of the ancient Buddha statue/relics. At the very least massive international pressure could’ve been brought to bear, even if U.S intel had connections to the Mujaheddin. And I can hear the sharpening of the knives against Clinton here, but remember covert operations were being carried out. And you could also argue that Bush, also didn’t much care to do anything about Afghanistan until after 911. Even though there were major signs that OBL had AQ camps there and they intended to strike the U.S.

and the mission that is starting to falter without our direct involvement.

Exactly. And why is that?

So now we have to go back in and pick up the slack on that for those other nations that – even though they have been at peace for fifty years – don’t have the few thousand troops to spare to take care of their mission.

Look, I invite a bunch of friends over to help me do something, build a house let’s say and they all come over and they’re ready to help and do what they can and when we start building the house I say, oh look I think I also want to build another less needed house across town so I’m going to go there and take most of my tools (and I’ve got the most and best tools) with me, now what do you think they’re going to do? First off it’s like WTF? You want the help here or you want the help there? And secondly, why don’t you worry about your first house before you worry about building a second house? And I would have to say they were right.

Were you at all aware that since the United States was the one attacked, it is the responsibility of the other NATO members to adequately deploy their own troops to help defend the US, and they have fallen down on that job, as well? Or are you now going to assert that it was all a one-way treaty in the first place?

Like I said, the country should’ve had its priorites straight. I don’t think anywhere in the treaty it says that member nations have to support the attacked nation on a unilateral decision to begin another front, that isn’t directly related to the original act of aggression on a member state. Germany and France felt that the Iraq war was based on flawed Intel and they were right. Iraq was not involved in 911 and furthermore the issue of WMDs was being handled by the IAEA inspectors who hadn’t finished their job. But I’ll entertain that maybe it was the correct thing to do to pre-preemptively remove the threat presented by a psychopath SOB like Saddam. So then the question becomes: Why were no plans in place to stabilize the nation after its govt. fell and was driven underground? It’s not like this country doesn’t know what’s required in a nation that’s been ravaged by a war. yet all that went out the window. All valid and necessary government infrastructure was dissolved. Why? Were was the necessary nation rebuilding? Security and police? Medicine, electricity….

But how can a government whose neoconservative ideology is based on suspicion of government, be expected to see that basic necessities were provided for? Everything happened on an ideological template even if the problem had to spun as being the problem and the solution was blindly and disastrously locked in place.

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/21/2008 @ 9:46 am

Peter, evidently you think that volume will cover up your complete ignorance of the topic.

It does not. Your repetition of the myth of “lies” has been debunked repeatedly. That you repeat them here shows your stubborn adherence to a fantasy. As for your ramblings about Afghanistan in your comment above, they are completely incoherent. You attempt to forget, if you ever paid any attention, the left wing opposition to the Afghanistan operation ( no surprise, since even MoveOn.org has been lying about their opposition ).

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:24 pm

I, and many liberals and Democrats, here in Babylon NYC andaround the country wanted nothing better then for AQ and the Taliban to basically be blown off the face of the earth forever. Full stop.

But then why would you decide to stop the war at that point? It wasn’t “just” the Taliban, and not “just” Al Qaeda, any more than it was “just” Adolf Hitler and “just” Admiral Yamamoto.

This is a conflict against terrorist groups and terrorist-supporting nations.

Such as Iraq.
Such as Iran.
Such as Syria.

Etc, ad nauseum.

Our conflict is against an ideology, not a flag.

Learn that lesson, and much more will be revealed.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:32 pm

Germany and France felt that the Iraq war was based on flawed Intel and they were right

Funny how they voted for UNSCR 1441, which basically says that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN Inspectors, and was going to be given a “final opportunity” to comply with all of the other resolutions that Iraq had been violating all along.

It’s the difference between a sound bite and actually doing something. You say they believed one way, I have a series of votes that says the exact opposite. Which should we believe, the words or the actions? (Kind of like the Democrats promising to end the war, yet voting to fund the war each and every time it comes up.)

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 5:36 pm

Drumwaster, what it is, is Peter making up stuff. Among the “flawed” intel was a German supplied Iraqi defector who did not recant his story until after the invasion.

SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:48 pm

I also had the behind the scenes contracts between Saddam and the big corporations in (*gasp*) Germany and France ready if he kept insisting.

It’s kind of tough to pretend that you are against a war if, a) the nation under discussion has been bribing you for the past decade, and b) you actually vote in favor of ever-harsher measures against that nation at every opportunity during that decade.

France was actually going to other members of the UNSC and threatening them to try and talk them out of actually enforcing the resolution they voted for!

No wonder Peter is so confused…

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/21/2008 @ 7:59 pm

It’s kind of tough to pretend that you are against a war

No it’s not. And not to point out the obvious, (that seems to be the main task with you), There’s a big big difference between inspectors and sanctions, a no fly zone, effective containment and declaring war and dropping bombs and destabilizing a whole country and region, and giving the truly dangerous Iranian Ayatollahs a nice big juicy strategic win.

France was actually going to other members of the UNSC and threatening them to try and talk them out of actually enforcing the resolution they voted for!

You mean there were politics going on in the UN Security Council, I’m shocked!! Shocked…

Peter (e70d1c) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:21 am

There’s a big big difference between inspectors and sanctions, a no fly zone, effective containment and declaring war and dropping bombs and destabilizing a whole country and region, and giving the truly dangerous Iranian Ayatollahs a nice big juicy strategic win.

You’re still stuck on the invalid claim that WE declared this war.

Do I need to start over again with the definitions of “Conditional Cease-Fire” and “Peace Treaty”?

Inspectors weren’t working. (see UNSCR 1441). Sanctions weren’t working. (See UNSCR 1441).
Containment wasn’t working. (He was firing at US and UK planes over those “no-fly” zones you were just advocating.)

We didn’t start this little fracas, and you are deliberately lying to keep asserting the contrary.

And surrounding Iran (Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf) is giving them a “strategic win”? You’ve been reading too many of Mookie Al-Sadr’s press reports, and not enough history books…

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:33 am

You mean there were politics going on in the UN Security Council, I’m shocked!! Shocked…

Me, too. In the one place on the planet where things like War and Peace are discussed, internecine politics doesn’t enter into it.

France had voted in favor of the “final opportunity” offered by 1441, but when the evidence came (from Hans Blix himself) that Iraq wasn’t obeying those conditions set, they were suddenly worried about needing to offer him yet another “final opportunity”. All that did was show the UN as a toothless entity that blusters and burbles but is no more to be feared than a Girl Scout Troop.

Less so, since Girl Scouts will at least TRY to enforce the rules.

Iraq was in material violation of not less than seventeen Security Council Resolutions, was directly and openly supporting international terrorism (killing Israelis and Americans), was openly defying the IAEA Inspectors, was openly committing Acts of War against two nations on the other side of a conditional cease-fire, and had attempted to assassinate an American President.

Like I said, we didn’t start this fracas.

Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:45 am

and giving the truly dangerous Iranian Ayatollahs a nice big juicy strategic win.

The fact that the war remained, albeit under a ceasefire, since 1991, what exactly is this big strategic win for the Mullahs? Details, please. Does it have something to do with 150K American troops across their borders?

Pablo (99243e) — 7/22/2008 @ 10:48 am

7/19/2008

Maliki Says a 16-Month Timetable for Withdrawal Is OK

112 Responses to “Maliki Says a 16-Month Timetable for Withdrawal Is OK”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out