1H8L1BS, My impression is that you don't just hate liberals, you hate anyone who doesn't agree with you. Rather than just casting aspersions, how about you re-read my post then tell me exactly what you disagree with in it. I would appreciate that. But in the mean time, allow me to respond to the minimal amount of facts you present...
You talk about "Shrillary, Chris Matthews, and the CBS, NBS, ABS, and CNNBS news divisions". And now, of course, Bob Woodward is added to the list. I presume he was fine as long as he refrained from the audacity to criticize the Bush administration too heavily. Then suddenly he's now the enemy. And of course, I am likewise on the list for pretty much the same reason: I refuse to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. If that's the criterion, it's a very small tent you're constructing. Already you have eliminated many active and retired generals, many traditional conservatives (I count myself among them), and even many neocons. In light of that, I think it's fair to ask... what the hell are YOU smoking?
But it goes further than that. How about Fox News? How about Shepard Smith and Bill Kristol? Are they the enemy? I refer you to this video clip of Shepard Smith interviewing Bill Kristol on Studio B. In it, Shepard Smith says EXACTLY what I've been saying of late, and even more emphatically than I've been saying it. And Bill Kristol agrees with him for the most part. The only exception is that he cuts Bush some slack in the name of political expediency. In certain respects I can understand that. Nonetheless, one would hope that Bush would consider his role as president and commander in chief first and foremost, and his role as a prominent Republican second. Unfortunately, in this case there is just too much evidence that he has emphasized the latter on the latter instead of the former.
For those that don't have high speed internet, I've provided the entire transcript of the interview below. I have put in bold print those parts that come closest to expressing what I have expressed in comments over the last few weeks. I apologize for the long post.
SHEPARD SMITH: "Can't you say beyond...beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that what's happening in Iraq is not working as we had hoped it would happen?
BILL KRISTOL: Yes.
SMITH: That the terrorism is getting worse? That they are feeding off it? Today, one side is talking about secession if they don't get over it, that the sectarian violence is spreading, that we're clearing out one area and not able to hold it and the insurgents ... that stay the course isn't working? Any more than, maybe, cut and run would work? And that everyone seems to know, but won't say the answer is to add troops not take them away? Where are the people who are looking out for our best interests?
KRISTOL: Well, I've said that many many times, so often I've been ridiculed for saying "more troops, more troops, more troops." I hope the president...
SMITH: If they really want to win it! [agitated]
KRISTOL: I agree...I hope...
SMITH: But I think they are just paying lip service to all this! [yelling]
KRISTOL: Well, I hope not because it really wouldn't be the right thing to do and I think President Bush wants to do the right thing and I think he knows there's a problem. He can't probably do anything until election day. I very much hope after election day he takes a fresh look at Iraq, sends enough troops, surges the...goes on the offensive there and plays for victory because..
SMITH: Bill..
KRISTOL: it's just too important to just, you know...
SMITH: It's horrifying that you just said he can't do anything until after the election. We've got men and women over there who are dying every day and you just said that the man who you support can't do anything even though you believe he knows it's wrong.
KRISTOL: I...I...urged him...
SMITH: OK, but what is worse that? What is worse than that, Bill Kristol? This isn't working. Well, isn't that what you are saying?
KRISTOL: It's not working....
SMITH: It's not working.
KRISTOL: It's not working, but some of the alternatives would work, would work worse and to be fair to him he has been....look ... I....Two months ago a Democratic senator said to me, I was saying Bush was going to stay the course and I admire him for his sticktoitive.. for his courage on Iraq and he said, "You're kid... You're crazy...everyone in Washington knows he is going to pull troops down before election day. He wants to give those Republican congressional candidates the benefit of seeing troops come home." It is to Bush's credit that he did not do that. We have moved a few more troops into Iraq. Bush has committed...
SMITH: A few more troops. [sarcastically]
KRISTOL: We should... We should ...
SMITH: We're still losing ground in city after city every day...
KRISTOL: I agree we should move more, but I think Bush has done...at least he has held his own ...ummm... I don't know...it's going back and forth there right now... I agree we could hit a crisis in two, three, four months unless we surge troops after the election. I thinks its hard to ask Bush to do something in the middle of this election season. We've seen how poisonous this political debate has gotten and I think... I just hope... I think he's right to hang tough and I hope he does the right thing after election day.
SMITH: That's a disgusting and repulsive reality Bill you have to admit that. That we can't do anything about something that is not working and where people are dying until after our elections are over...
KRISTOL: Well, we could do something... we should do something...but I'm just telling you that....
SMITH: The political reality is we can't.
KRISTOL: it's been a poisonous political debate ...both sides.
SMITH: If I were the mother of a father of a young man who dies between now and that election in this war I would be raising holy hell. Wouldn't you?
KRISTOL: Well, no....
SMITH: Wouldn't you, Bill? If you believed that this isn't working...
KRISTOL: No. They do..they're doing..They think they're doing the best the military strategy
SMITH: Do you think they think that, Bill, really?
KRISTOL: I think they, I think so.
SMITH: Because you don't think so, you just said so.
KRISTOL: Well, I've been critical of them. I think they should send more troops, but other people differ. I think Bush is going to reconsider when he thinks uh..after he gets through this election here. I wish he would have reconsidered six months ago. I urged him to six months ago. He chose not to. But to be fair to him, to be fair to him I think he is doing what he thinks is his best for the country and I think he is right, that the alternative of somehow pulling down wouldn't help. And incidentally, for the mothers and fathers who have kids there my solution does not...does not... decrease the chance of casualties. I'm willing to.. I think we may have to take more casualties there.
SMITH: To win! But what they keep saying is they want to win. And yet you talk to soldiers and captains and colonels who come home or who talk to you on the phone or who send you an email and they say, "Look! We win individual battles. We leave the individual battle and go to the next town and the insurgents come back." It's happening in Afghanistan right now!
KRISTOL: I agree.
SMITH: The Taliban had been wiped out. Now the poppy production is up to supplying 92% because we don't have enough people there. So how fair is it to the people of this country and to the world to be in a process that you know is not working, to know what the solutions are, yet because of the election system and the political process you allow a losing thing to continue?
KRISTOL: Well I think we can make it a winning thing, I think Bush will make it a winning thing, It's a democracy. It has drawbacks. I agree on Afghanistan,incidentally, that's another place where we're going to have to increase troop levels in the next few weeks.
SMITH: Yeah, but when?
KRISTOL: Soon.
SMITH: We'll see. Bill Kristol, good of you to come.
KRISTOL: Thank's Shep.
WVO pointed out that Gen. Caldwell is not exactly the most objective source for information on Iraq. He said it in a snarky way, but he's right. Gen. Caldwell is the head of communications in Iraq. As such, it's his job to interpret things in the most favorable light, much like it's Tony Snow's job to interpret things coming out of the White House in the most favorable light. But I wouldn't seek out either of them for true objectivity. It's just plain dumb to think you can. That's not a knock on Caldwell or Snow, or anyone else. It's just the way it is. Bush didn't start it, it's always been that way.
You say, 1H8L1BS, "We were told, and those of us with a sense of history and reasoning, understand, that this war on terror, clash of civilisations, war on Islam, call it what you will, was going to take a long time and result in sacrifice and suffering." Except for the "sacrifice and suffering" part I would generally agree. I say generally because comments of that sort referenced the general GWOT, not specifically the "Battle for Iraq". The latter was supposed to be the beach-head, the modern-day Normandy if you will. And those of us with a sense of history remember that we were told -- repeatedly and with great emphasis -- that winning the beach-head was going to be easy. We were told we'd be greeted with flowers, that the invasion would pay for itself in short order, and it was pointless to draw up plans for an extended stay, because it was ludicrous to even think in those terms. Iraq, it was assumed, would quickly become the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, the grain of desert sand around which the pearl of freedom would coalesce.
It turns out that all the assumptions along the way were wrong. But the importance of the outcome is still true -- that is, to the extent that we fail in Iraq we will dig ourselves an immense hole in our war on terror. The situation in Iraq cannot be properly compared to Gallipoli, or Anzio, or even Alemain. The most proper comparison is Normandy. Had we failed there, there is every reason to believe that Hitler still would have been defeated. After all, we had command of the skies, and we were making it impossible for Germany to maintain its technological edge. But had we failed in Normandy, Hitler would have been defeated from the east, from the USSR. We may have been able to save Italy, parts of France, and maybe Belgium, Denmark, and Holland. But stil, it would have been a nightmare of epic proportions had we failed in Normandy.
We cannot fail in Iraq. And because we have not been winning there the ramifications of failure are becoming increasingly obvious, and ominous. Iran is in ascendance, Pakistan is getting increasingly petulant, Afghanistan is becoming more perilous, and the big fish -- Russia and China -- are starting to circle the waters.
Oh, and by the way, 1H8L1BS, your assumption about my age is off by more than a decade. And if you want to battle wits -- and facts -- with me, I advise you to come well armed. In the mean time, good luck with your painting.
Where there is spin, there is William Caldwell IV. William B. Caldwell IV, the military's top spokesman, the man who was caught in a lie when he wrote that since Aug. 7, killings in Baghdad had declined by 52 percent ...
WVO, you beat me to the first point. Gen. Caldwell is the Pentagon's Tony Snow. The second is...
Mark: "But those millions of Iraqis who voted and hundreds of thousands who have volunteered to fight on our side have earned our loyalty and respect."
Let's hope they don't get to vote again for a while. A couple of recent polls, one by PIPA and one by the State Department, don't look good as far as general Iraqi sentiment goes. One could argue away one poll, but two?
Additionally, there are the reports from many generals on the ground, from the members of the Iraq Study Group, and also Amb Khalilzad, that we are reaching a crisis point where the Iraqi government has to step up -- and soon.
And the 60% of the Iraqi's that condone attacks on our troops - that means what? Like the 60% of Americans that think Iraq is a failure - and the 16 counter intelligence agencies - and the laundry list of Generals and top military brass that have condemed the civilian leadership of this ill-fated fiasco they're ALL wrong ... and to combat all this bush does what? Makes TORTURE an American value!!! Calls those that point out the facts "niave" ... just who's in denial?
Great, let's get the US out of there--US and Iraqi casualties continue to mount.
--------------------
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2708
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 4
Total 2712
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: Sep 29, 2006
Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
9-2006 70 3 2 75 2.5 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Sep-06 1579
Aug-06 1203
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Where there is spin, there is William Caldwell IV.
Where there is hashish smoke, stupidity, and ignorance, there are WVO, Rico, and Nate.
We were told, and those of us with a sense of history and reasoning, understand, that this war on terror, clash of civilisations, war on Islam, call it what you will, was going to take a long time and result in sacrifice and suffering.
You want to hear spin? Well, you kookbats are listening to it every day, when you listen to Shrillary, Chris Matthews, and the CBS, NBS, ABS, and CNNBS news divisions.
I would venture to guess that none of you three are older than 40, and that your favourite authors are Noam Chomsky, Frank Rich, and Bob Woodward.
Rico, another blogger here whom I've corresponded with via e-mail tells me that you're not a kook. I disagree--you appear as unhinged as the rest of the BDS-suffering moonbats here. WVO is a phony from another phony blog, and Nate is just your garden-variety kook, probably a recent graduate of Penn.
Now excuse me; I have painting to do...
1H8L1BS, My impression is that you don't just hate liberals, you hate anyone who doesn't agree with you. Rather than just casting aspersions, how about you re-read my post then tell me exactly what you disagree with in it. I would appreciate that. But in the mean time, allow me to respond to the minimal amount of facts you present...
You talk about "Shrillary, Chris Matthews, and the CBS, NBS, ABS, and CNNBS news divisions". And now, of course, Bob Woodward is added to the list. I presume he was fine as long as he refrained from the audacity to criticize the Bush administration too heavily. Then suddenly he's now the enemy. And of course, I am likewise on the list for pretty much the same reason: I refuse to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. If that's the criterion, it's a very small tent you're constructing. Already you have eliminated many active and retired generals, many traditional conservatives (I count myself among them), and even many neocons. In light of that, I think it's fair to ask... what the hell are YOU smoking?
But it goes further than that. How about Fox News? How about Shepard Smith and Bill Kristol? Are they the enemy? I refer you to this video clip of Shepard Smith interviewing Bill Kristol on Studio B. In it, Shepard Smith says EXACTLY what I've been saying of late, and even more emphatically than I've been saying it. And Bill Kristol agrees with him for the most part. The only exception is that he cuts Bush some slack in the name of political expediency. In certain respects I can understand that. Nonetheless, one would hope that Bush would consider his role as president and commander in chief first and foremost, and his role as a prominent Republican second. Unfortunately, in this case there is just too much evidence that he has emphasized the latter on the latter instead of the former.
For those that don't have high speed internet, I've provided the entire transcript of the interview below. I have put in bold print those parts that come closest to expressing what I have expressed in comments over the last few weeks. I apologize for the long post.
SHEPARD SMITH: "Can't you say beyond...beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that what's happening in Iraq is not working as we had hoped it would happen?
BILL KRISTOL: Yes.
SMITH: That the terrorism is getting worse? That they are feeding off it? Today, one side is talking about secession if they don't get over it, that the sectarian violence is spreading, that we're clearing out one area and not able to hold it and the insurgents ... that stay the course isn't working? Any more than, maybe, cut and run would work? And that everyone seems to know, but won't say the answer is to add troops not take them away? Where are the people who are looking out for our best interests?
KRISTOL: Well, I've said that many many times, so often I've been ridiculed for saying "more troops, more troops, more troops." I hope the president...
SMITH: If they really want to win it! [agitated]
KRISTOL: I agree...I hope...
SMITH: But I think they are just paying lip service to all this! [yelling]
KRISTOL: Well, I hope not because it really wouldn't be the right thing to do and I think President Bush wants to do the right thing and I think he knows there's a problem. He can't probably do anything until election day. I very much hope after election day he takes a fresh look at Iraq, sends enough troops, surges the...goes on the offensive there and plays for victory because..
SMITH: Bill..
KRISTOL: it's just too important to just, you know...
SMITH: It's horrifying that you just said he can't do anything until after the election. We've got men and women over there who are dying every day and you just said that the man who you support can't do anything even though you believe he knows it's wrong.
KRISTOL: I...I...urged him...
SMITH: OK, but what is worse that? What is worse than that, Bill Kristol? This isn't working. Well, isn't that what you are saying?
KRISTOL: It's not working....
SMITH: It's not working.
KRISTOL: It's not working, but some of the alternatives would work, would work worse and to be fair to him he has been....look ... I....Two months ago a Democratic senator said to me, I was saying Bush was going to stay the course and I admire him for his sticktoitive.. for his courage on Iraq and he said, "You're kid... You're crazy...everyone in Washington knows he is going to pull troops down before election day. He wants to give those Republican congressional candidates the benefit of seeing troops come home." It is to Bush's credit that he did not do that. We have moved a few more troops into Iraq. Bush has committed...
SMITH: A few more troops. [sarcastically]
KRISTOL: We should... We should ...
SMITH: We're still losing ground in city after city every day...
KRISTOL: I agree we should move more, but I think Bush has done...at least he has held his own ...ummm... I don't know...it's going back and forth there right now... I agree we could hit a crisis in two, three, four months unless we surge troops after the election. I thinks its hard to ask Bush to do something in the middle of this election season. We've seen how poisonous this political debate has gotten and I think... I just hope... I think he's right to hang tough and I hope he does the right thing after election day.
SMITH: That's a disgusting and repulsive reality Bill you have to admit that. That we can't do anything about something that is not working and where people are dying until after our elections are over...
KRISTOL: Well, we could do something... we should do something...but I'm just telling you that....
SMITH: The political reality is we can't.
KRISTOL: it's been a poisonous political debate ...both sides.
SMITH: If I were the mother of a father of a young man who dies between now and that election in this war I would be raising holy hell. Wouldn't you?
KRISTOL: Well, no....
SMITH: Wouldn't you, Bill? If you believed that this isn't working...
KRISTOL: No. They do..they're doing..They think they're doing the best the military strategy
SMITH: Do you think they think that, Bill, really?
KRISTOL: I think they, I think so.
SMITH: Because you don't think so, you just said so.
KRISTOL: Well, I've been critical of them. I think they should send more troops, but other people differ. I think Bush is going to reconsider when he thinks uh..after he gets through this election here. I wish he would have reconsidered six months ago. I urged him to six months ago. He chose not to. But to be fair to him, to be fair to him I think he is doing what he thinks is his best for the country and I think he is right, that the alternative of somehow pulling down wouldn't help. And incidentally, for the mothers and fathers who have kids there my solution does not...does not... decrease the chance of casualties. I'm willing to.. I think we may have to take more casualties there.
SMITH: To win! But what they keep saying is they want to win. And yet you talk to soldiers and captains and colonels who come home or who talk to you on the phone or who send you an email and they say, "Look! We win individual battles. We leave the individual battle and go to the next town and the insurgents come back." It's happening in Afghanistan right now!
KRISTOL: I agree.
SMITH: The Taliban had been wiped out. Now the poppy production is up to supplying 92% because we don't have enough people there. So how fair is it to the people of this country and to the world to be in a process that you know is not working, to know what the solutions are, yet because of the election system and the political process you allow a losing thing to continue?
KRISTOL: Well I think we can make it a winning thing, I think Bush will make it a winning thing, It's a democracy. It has drawbacks. I agree on Afghanistan,incidentally, that's another place where we're going to have to increase troop levels in the next few weeks.
SMITH: Yeah, but when?
KRISTOL: Soon.
SMITH: We'll see. Bill Kristol, good of you to come.
KRISTOL: Thank's Shep.
WVO pointed out that Gen. Caldwell is not exactly the most objective source for information on Iraq. He said it in a snarky way, but he's right. Gen. Caldwell is the head of communications in Iraq. As such, it's his job to interpret things in the most favorable light, much like it's Tony Snow's job to interpret things coming out of the White House in the most favorable light. But I wouldn't seek out either of them for true objectivity. It's just plain dumb to think you can. That's not a knock on Caldwell or Snow, or anyone else. It's just the way it is. Bush didn't start it, it's always been that way.
You say, 1H8L1BS, "We were told, and those of us with a sense of history and reasoning, understand, that this war on terror, clash of civilisations, war on Islam, call it what you will, was going to take a long time and result in sacrifice and suffering." Except for the "sacrifice and suffering" part I would generally agree. I say generally because comments of that sort referenced the general GWOT, not specifically the "Battle for Iraq". The latter was supposed to be the beach-head, the modern-day Normandy if you will. And those of us with a sense of history remember that we were told -- repeatedly and with great emphasis -- that winning the beach-head was going to be easy. We were told we'd be greeted with flowers, that the invasion would pay for itself in short order, and it was pointless to draw up plans for an extended stay, because it was ludicrous to even think in those terms. Iraq, it was assumed, would quickly become the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, the grain of desert sand around which the pearl of freedom would coalesce.
It turns out that all the assumptions along the way were wrong. But the importance of the outcome is still true -- that is, to the extent that we fail in Iraq we will dig ourselves an immense hole in our war on terror. The situation in Iraq cannot be properly compared to Gallipoli, or Anzio, or even Alemain. The most proper comparison is Normandy. Had we failed there, there is every reason to believe that Hitler still would have been defeated. After all, we had command of the skies, and we were making it impossible for Germany to maintain its technological edge. But had we failed in Normandy, Hitler would have been defeated from the east, from the USSR. We may have been able to save Italy, parts of France, and maybe Belgium, Denmark, and Holland. But stil, it would have been a nightmare of epic proportions had we failed in Normandy.
We cannot fail in Iraq. And because we have not been winning there the ramifications of failure are becoming increasingly obvious, and ominous. Iran is in ascendance, Pakistan is getting increasingly petulant, Afghanistan is becoming more perilous, and the big fish -- Russia and China -- are starting to circle the waters.
Oh, and by the way, 1H8L1BS, your assumption about my age is off by more than a decade. And if you want to battle wits -- and facts -- with me, I advise you to come well armed. In the mean time, good luck with your painting.