Finally.

226 thoughts on “Finally.”

1. Good one! OK, I admit it, von: Republicans can sometimes be funny, too.

2. The speech reads much better in print. I listened to the President on radio and found it hard to hear him; the speech seemed so rote when he spoke it, even though the transcript reveals some different political and diplomatic positions.

3. This is serious business, folks.
   Well, I can’t tell from these remarks. Sounds like you’re more interested in attacking domestic enemies. That might make you feel better, von, but it won’t make anyone any safer.
   yet, certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived)
   Certain Republicans give the appearance of delighting in torture. What’ll you have, von, a neck or a thigh?

4. It’s a good speech, there’s no question about that. He says a lot of the things he has needed to say for a long time, and he deserves credit for saying them. I suppose it’s too much to ask that he acknowledge and take responsibility for the deliberate mendacity his administration engaged in during the war’s run-up, and the head-in-the-sand state of denial in which they have spent so much time refusing to acknowledge so many of the things he finally said here.
   And yet it could have been so much more. Bush acknowledges that progress in Iraq will depend on a series of milestones, but still remains maddeningly vague about what those milestones are. The meaningless pablum about “victory” makes a return. And while it is appropriate that he has finally deigned to answer some of the criticisms of his policies that exist, and acknowledge that some of those criticisms are sincerely felt, it would help if he responded to actual criticisms instead of erecting straw man after straw man out of the left’s arguments so that he can knock them down with feigned ease.
   So yeah, it’s progress, in the same way that it’s progress when your uncle finally admits that having a drinking problem is challenging and assures you that he’s taking steps to make things right. But in the meantime, he’s still a drunk and his car’s still wrecked.

5. “It’s worth noting that the pressure is now on the Democrats.”
   Say what? Democrats have zero influence on the outcome in Iraq. Zero. Should Zarwahi(Zarqahi?) whomever even think of awaiting a policy change in 2006 or 2008 due to a change in power it would not be a very safe bet.
   Nobody in America or Iraq (which does have satellites and is connected to the Internet) cares what Pelosi thinks about Iraq. John Murtha, who should have the maximum influence of any Democrat, was a one-week-wonder.
   Von, if you are still trying to blame any past or future setbacks or failures in Iraq on Democrats, you are allying yourself with a pretty disreputable crowd.

6. Yeah, I know it’s going to get repetitive, but what exactly can a good speech (assuming it was good; I didn’t watch it) put pressure on Democrats to do? Give a speech explaining why winning in Iraq isn’t important? Give a speech explaining why the most helpful thing we can do for the Iraqis at this juncture is a withdrawal? It can’t be anything other than give a speech, can it?

7. I admit to not reading the speech. Did the president call for a draft, full funding of support services for troops and their families, an independent audit of spending related to the war backed with an independent counsel’s authority to prosecute waste and fraud, publication of the key documents governing White House practice with regard to torture and surveillance, and an immediate reappraisal of the planning done before 2002 on post-war needs? Did he apologize for how often he, the vice-president, and their administration have insulted the patriotism, intelligence, courage, and basic decency of those who disagree with them on points of policy? Did he reaffirm his oath of office to uphold the laws of the land, including the treaties and statutes he might find inconvenient at the moment, as the living demonstration of what democratic government is all about?
   Did he do any of those things?
   If not, is there any reason the rest of us should care? I have no burden to keep tossing solutions at someone who demonstrably isn’t serious about it. When the president has done some significant fraction of what’s in his power as chief executive, then I will feel a burden to try to help bridge the remaining distance. I’m ready and willing, but I’m not able until he starts.

8. I skimmed. What’s new, other than the sporty new “no, really, I don’t live in a bubble” tone? That’s a welcome development but it’s a PR development. Where’s the new substance? Honestly confused.

9. Was too busy wrapping up my Christmas shopping to catch the speech. What’d I miss?

10. Von is absolutely right. The ONLY thing preventing a flowering of democracy, freedom, and fucking apple pies in Iraq is the Democrats, who have deployed their stormtroopers througout the Middle East in order to foil freedom.
    Jesus, Von, do you have any idea how ludicrous this is getting?
    Here’s a told you so: “George Bush is flaming moron, surrounded by ideologically blinded fools. If this war was EVER winnable — something I heavily dispute, given any reasonable definition of “win” — it certainly isn’t in the hands of these fools.”
    Pretty speechs pull the wool over your eyes nicely, I note. Getting desperate for that turning point, eh? Given we’ve turned the corner so many times we’re back where we started, I’m not surprised you’ve ditched reality in favor of the gently glowing fantasy land Bush lives in.

11. “Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose….”
    Well Bush has had everything he’s asked for all along for this war. He should put up (win it) or shut up (stop whining).
    His “Mission Accomplished” moment was years ago, yet he has to plead with the American people to accomplish the mission. It’s ridiculous. Finish the goddamn job.

12. Oh — and as an addendum — I suppose this also makes all that torture and illegal wiretapping “Okay”. Only enemies of freedom would be against it.

13. Heh.
    Isn’t that always the way it goes – the conservatives start a fight they can’t finish and call on the liberals to bail them out.
    Well, this time the answer is no.
    The republicans need to put on a helmet and practice that “personal responsibility” they crow on and on about instead of blaming others for their troubles.

14. von: It might make you feel better to dispense your “told you so’s.” But it won’t make us safer.
    Nor will eating chocolate chip cookies make us safer. But they are yummy, so I will throw caution to the wind.

15. “It’s worth noting that the pressure is now on the Democrats.”
    Honestly, do you really believe that? The Republicans control the Executive and
    Legislative branches and have at least a tie in the Judiciary, they asked for this war, they got the authorization from a good number of Democrats, they’ve railed against the patriotism and legitimacy of any who criticized them in any way, they’ve run the entire operration their way with no input from anyone else, yet it’s the Democrats who are on the spot? Where’s the personal responsibilty? Maybe if Bush admitted how badly he’s screwed this up and asked specific Democrats for help, that would put some pressure on them.
    Look, Bush wanted this war in the worst way, and Republicans lined up virtually in lockstep behind him. To now say that the Democrats are liable for the issues we now face, or have any responsibility for how thing have turned out is just Republican partisans merely being afraid of (rightly) being assigned responsibilty for this clusterfuck.
    Anyone can have elections under a military occupation. When the government changes hands peacefully in an unoccupied country, you’ll have something to be happy about.

16. I don’t think von is anti-Democrat and I don’t think he is thinking about this war in a mindless cheerleading way. He wants us to try to achieve some kind of positive result there. That’s a responsible, humane attitude.
    I think it is naive to expect anything responisble or even competent from Bush, however.
    By the way, the number one has to type in order to post is almost impossible to read, at least for me. I’ve tried unsuccessfully twice now. The background distorts the letters.

17. Really, who can say I prosecuted the GWOT perfectly? So what if Bush has not. Where has ANY of his opposition said, “Here is something you can do, that you may not have looked into.” ? My answer is that John Kerry in the debates stated that shipping containers could be checked more rigorously. Aside from that, I’ve seen NOTHING but complaints. There are damn few politicians out there that could handle the criticism, both warranted and unwarranted. At least they could read the intelligence reports, and not leak them.

18. I don’t think von is anti-Democrat and I don’t think he is thinking about this war in a mindless cheerleading way. He wants us to try to achieve some kind of positive result there. That’s a responsible, humane attitude.

    Then what, exactly, is he? Living in an alternate reality where Democrats control the levers of power? Or when where Democratic operatives are seeded through insurgent groups? Or perhaps one where the insurgency — like some demented Playstation game — waxes and wanes depending on how for or against the war the Democrats are.
    Interpreting Von’s remarks as a purely partisan assault fueled by desperation is the charitable view.
    I mean, let’s face it — Von either believes or is claiming to believe — that it’s the Democrats somehow standing between us and victory here.
    Looking for an explanation of that view leads me to conclude he’s either ignorant, flamingly partisan, or insane. He seems to have enough grasp on the basics of US politics to be aware of who has total power over the war — the GOP in general and Bush in particular. He claims he’s not flamingly partisan.
    So that leaves “living in an alternate reality”.

19. By the way, the number one has to type in order to post is almost impossible to read, at least for me. I’ve tried unsuccessfully twice now. The background distorts the letters.
    I’ve always suspected that lily is an automated robot ;^)
    (Your Typepad defenses have recently proven to be inadequate!)

20. Where has ANY of his opposition said, “Here is something you can do, that you may not have looked into.” ?
    how about the entire Department of Homeland Security ?

21. Oh, good, the President gave the speech Von’s been waiting for. Victory is now in sight!
    Why on earth anyone of Von’s obvious intelligence attaches the least importance to anything Bush says is a mystery. I can guess only that, compared with his deeds, Bush’s words are all his supporters have left.

22. It’s worth noting that the pressure is now on the Democrats
    to do… ?
    Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose; yet, certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback
    yawn. really. if this is a fight we cannot afford to lose, why is Bush doing the bare minimum (less than that, it can be easily argued) to win it ? why did he not saturate Iraq with US troops three years ago as soon as the insurgency started ? not enough troops. no draft? no political will.
    woah.. did i just use the word “political” ? i couldn’t have, because that would imply that Republicans are putting domestic partisan politics into their calculations about the war. and if they did that, people would think they weren’t really serious when they say things like “Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose”.
    shorter von: only Republicans should be allowed to inject politics into this war.

23. DaveC, can you point at three instances on which Bush made a significant change to a major administration policy based on comments from anyone outside the administration?
    As for specifics…Congressman Murtha offered a four-point proposal:
    To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
    To create a quick reaction force in the region.
    To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
    To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
    The administration response was to ridicule him, associate him with Michael Moore, and ram through a vote on a proposal that Congressional Republicans claimed was his but wasn’t.
    Other Democrats have been asking for nothing more remarkable than a clear set of benchmarks and regular reports on progress toward or retreat from them, and gotten ridicule and worse for it.

24. DaveC, there were plenty of people who thought invading Iraq prior to complete victory over AQ was a mistake, and said so in 2002.
    I get to see some small parts of what should be another front in the WOT at closer range — and I’ve got a ton of ideas how it could be done better. These ideas are widespread in circles I travel in, and the administration is utterly uninterested in anything. They are doing what they want, and don’t want suggestions, even when it’s clear that they’re making mistakes as they make it up as they go. (Stomping on the Koran is a perfect example. There are a couple of ways in which stomping on the Koran in the presence of a prisoner might provide some small advantage, some scrap of information. If the whole WOT was a confrontation between one prisoner and one guard, you could see how it might well make sense to have the guard stomp on a Koran. However, since there are a whole lot of other people involved, it turns out that stomping on the Koran gets you more trouble than information. You think they want to hear from me that they should stop stomping on Korans?)

25. Since Lily has more than once talked about her vision problems, I wish there were some way she could have a less annoying Turing test. She’s been around for awhile and has always seemed like a mensch; what say the powers that be to rig up a pass for her?
    I suggest this knowing full well that on my own Blogspot sites I have to pass tests in order to comment. Is there any other way? On http://www.aqoul.com, commenters are asked to type the name of the image they see, which has always been a cat. I don’t know what software they use, or what their exposure to spam is, but this model seems to work for them.
    And, yeah, since I’ve also failed the test more than once, I feel a personal interest here.

26. DaveC: Leaving aside my ever-helpful self — I have been making suggestions all along, yet oddly no one pays attention — let me recommend this speech by Wes Clark. (See “Number Two: What do we do now?”, about a third of the way down.) It’s from Nov. 2003, so a lot of it wouldn’t work now, but it was, I think, very good advice at the time.

27. It was a sermon, well rehersed and delivered in the usual hard-working fashion. [No immediate ‘analysis’ on NPR.] Here’s my impression: (There is no live audience for this speech.)
    The devil struck Sept 11 2001 but America (not the Coalition so much)is gradually (the Iraqi forces are up to 150 battalions with an additional 50 battalions leading the fight)[ so, the larger segment is alongside or dragging the fight, rear guarding maybe?] and mightily making Progress. We shall prevail no matter what the politicians in Washington say. Democracy is worth it. And importantly, America is not a loser.
    That was the sermon. This detail sands out:
    W is fond of looking people in the eye to discern the depth of their character and God knows What. It is his trade mark tool that sets him apart from just about everybody. From these oracles, the mothers of fallen US soldiers, we learn that if it takes more lives, it takes more lives.
    I think it may have ended with “God bless America” or “amen” but that was revised at the last minute. Not a bad sermon really, and maybe pretty effective at getting some of the sheep back in line.

28. Jackmormon: I don’t think we can do that. I have no idea what triggers the Turing Test, other than posting comments in quick succession, but I have to take it, and I have never been able to figure out how to tell TypePad that it can trust me.

29. You want a reason to delight in purported setbacks?
    “..as my friend John says, it’s increasingly clear that quagmire in Iraq is the only thing that has saved us from a police state under these guys. We should give thanks to the Iraqis.”
    http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003288.html
    You, sir, are objectively pro-Stalin.
    Fuck you.

30. First, I agree with Von that he would have made his life a lot easier had he given this speech a year ago. A perfectly reasonable explanation that would have nipped the whole “Bush Lied” meme in the bud. “We all thought he had WMD. He didn’t, but after 9/11, better safe than sorry. Plus he was a really bad guy.” I’ll bite. Or I would have (though I still might). At this date it just looks political.
    As for the whole thing, he almost had me this time. On the WaPo site, the story is on three pages, I was nodding my head through the first two…and then he called out the ‘defeatists’ without a word for the ‘triumphalists’. I can’t say it better than this, so I’ll just quote:
    I also had a visceral reaction toward Bush’s barely veiled partisan swipe at “defeatists who refuse to see anything is right.” He proclaims that such people only make such claims for “partisan uses.” Obviously, there are people who fit into this category. However, it is fall smaller than him and his flacks have previously made it out to be. Partisanship cuts both ways here–Bush can’t expect me to take his complaints about “defeatists” when nearly any criticism of his policies in any manner, form, or respect has landed the speaker into this category (his token nod to “honest critics” notwithstanding). But more importantly, it says absolutely nothing about those commentators who, one might argue, “refuse to see anything is wrong.” Such speakers are nearly endemic amongst the Republican right. Presumably, their triumphantalism is as harmful to the war effort as the defeatists, as it obstructs necessary policy changes and paves the way for the continuation of failed strategies. What is needed is neither defeatism nor triumphantalism. What is needed is a clear-eyed perspective, one that does not proclaim doom at every setback, but is not blind to clear errors either. If President Bush was truly serious about placing this war beyond currents of partisanship, he should have repudiated that branch of his own party. But by exempting his boosters from criticism even while assailing Democrats for similar sins, he shows that he himself has not transcended his view of Iraq as little more than a partisan game.

31. My predictiction: Tel Aviv nuked by Iran in 2006. Politicians in the US, the UN and internationally have opposed any measures that could have prevented this, even though both Iranian presidential candidates have said that they would support wiping out Israel (Look around for a picture of the Iranian president in the “World Without Zionism” conference last week). This didn’t happen because of a flawed Newsweek story.
    But NOBODY, NOBODY at ObWi or the newspapers or TV News or Newsweek gives a rats ass about the Iraqi elections, either, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

32. wcw: the posting rules prohibit profanity.
    And von: Oddly enough, most of us do not delight in purported setbacks, etc., etc. Lots of people say that we do, but the actual delighted people are, as best I can tell, few and far between. It’s very annoying to have to keep r[proving this again and again, despite the fact that (as best I can tell) the idea that we are delighting in setbacks owes a lot more to conservatives’ assumptions about liberals than to any feature of liberals themselves.
    I mean, I could start saying that the onus is on you to prove that you’re not an authoritarian proto-fascist jackbooted thug blinded by your love of Bush, or something, but what on earth would make me that uncharitable towards you?
    If I had wanted Bush to fail, I would not have opposed going to war. I mean, I believed that it was very, very likely that he would fail if he did, and that’s one of the reasons I was dead set against the war. (I mean, I share your view about the horrible consequences of defeat, though not your views about the availability of alternatives.)
    I very much want to be wrong about this. I think almost all of us (on this site) do. So even if I could make any sense out of the idea that the pressure is on a group of people who have no power whatsoever, I really don’t see who, of your likely listeners, you take yourself to be addressing.

33. DaveC: FWIW, I didn’t write about the Iraqi elections in large part because I was writing for both ObWi and Kevin Drum that day, and Shakespeare’s Sister got there before I did.

34. DaveC: Did you not bother to check your claim, or were you deliberately making a false claim?

35. But NOBODY, NOBODY at ObWi or the newspapers or TV News or Newsweek gives a rats ass about the Iraqi elections, either, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
    Geez, what channel do you watch? I saw plenty of coverage on election day. And you can bet that once the result is known, there will be plenty more. The WaPo had coverage. NYT also. Juan Cole cited a LA Times story today on how your man Allawi seems not to have done very well.

36. But NOBODY, NOBODY at ObWi or the newspapers or TV News or Newsweek gives a rats ass about the Iraqi elections, either, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
    Bringing democracy to Iraq is a social welfare program, pure and simple. Are you aware of any Republican on the face of the earth who would support a $70 bil./yr social welfare program to revitalize our inner cities? I’m not. So I don’t think there’s any chance that the Republicans see this one through. Iraq will go to some for of brutal strongman (at best) because Republicans have not in the past, and will not in the future, care enough to spend what is necessary to make a different future. Brutality is, if nothing else, efficient.
    And Democrats know that. So everything in Iraq is, at best, massively contingent on things breaking right. At worst, it’s a lost cause that Republicans will blame on liberals and Iraqis who didn’t “want it enough.”

37. I found this Thomas Barnett post, (and one of his others which he links to from that one) on the mistake of taking the Iranian’s anti-Israeli rhetoric seriously, enlightening. By not taking it seriously, I don’t mean that they don’t seriously hate Israel, but that they don’t seriously plan on acting on that hate.
    Also, while I think the liklihood of Iran using a nuclear bomb in 2006 on anyone, especially a nuclear power like Israel, is vanishingly small, I don’t know what purpose, if any, that prediction is meant to serve in an argument about the War in Iraq.

38. My predictiction: Tel Aviv nuked by Iran in 2006.
    In which case, Israel will drop a lot of its 82 nukes on Iran. End result: maybe 50K Israelis dead, 10 mil. Iranians dead, and no US resources spent. Israel survives, Iran is no longer a problem, and we’re fine. Efficient solution.
    Of course, Iran knows this, and is therefore unlikely to pursue this course of action.

39. leek…”likilihood” should be “likelihood”.

40. My predictiction: Tel Aviv nuked by Iran in 2006. Politicians in the US, the UN and internationally have opposed any measures that could have prevented this, even though both Iranian presidential candidates have said that they would support wiping out Israel
    This post by Matt Yglesias has a key insight towards this, which is short enough to put here.
    One key swing constituency in this whole standoff is the Arab world. The regimes in the Gulf and beyond the Egypt are not very excited about the prospect of a nuclear Iran which they naturally see as a threat to their own standing in the area. But the Arab public is pretty sympathetic to the Iranian position on this. If Teheran can successfully frame its nuclear program as directed at Israel, rather than the Gulf monarchies, then it becomes extremely difficult for the Arab regimes to support an anti-Iranian policy even though they’d be inclined to do so. In that sense, I worry that the tendency of western diplomats to explicitly link the Israel and nuclear issues every time Ahmadinejad launches one of these tirades is a mistake.
    Pity that Bush has made it totally toxic to support the US. (lest this be interpreted as ‘blaming Bush’, let me point out that it is not a question of who is to blame, it is a question of undercutting the other guy’s policies. Everything Bush has done has been aimed in the opposite direction like ‘drunk rednecks on a duck hunt’)

41. washerdreyer wrote:
    Also, while I think the liklihood of Iran using a nuclear bomb in 2006 on anyone, especially a nuclear power like Israel, is vanishingly small, I don’t know what purpose, if any, that prediction is meant to serve in an argument about the War in Iraq.
    When all else fails it’s fire and brimstone and eternal damnation.
    In the end, it’s always “the threat”.
    It’s the axis mundi of the reactionary right

42. von: In all seriousness, why in God’s name does a pretty speech from the Bush Administration mean a single goddamn thing to you? Why are you investing it with the slightest bit of credibility or determining power?
    If Bush actually effects some of these ideas in a coherent manner, and if the resultant strategic picture improves after a causal fashion — and God forbid, if this actually coheres enough to be a meaningful plan — sure, I could see your relief. I’d be pretty damn relieved too. But this… seriously, what are you thinking?
    …and why on God’s green earth are you inveighing against the Democrats? Your point about defeatism is well-taken insofar as the MSM and the GOP successfully and continually lie about Democratic defeatism — we’re generally convinced that we’re going to lose because Bush is incompetent and the war was a stupid idea, not revelling in the inevitable failures and calamities that have ensued — so why not try to set the record straight and act as a genuine centrist counterbalance to the BS being hurled in the Democrats’ direction?
    Or has “They’re not traitors. They’re just on the other side.” completely slipped your mind?

43. Why are you harshing on Ally McBeal? It was the most accurate representation of the legal profession ever shown on prime time.

44. “The only question we have to answer is what to do now to give us the best chance of winning (or, at least, not losing) Iraq.”
    von, with all respect, the answer to this question has been apparent for some time.
    a. More troops, and more money spent on them. The rub here is that it will require a draft and raising taxes. Will the Administration support that?
    b. Repairing the diplomatic rifts with our allies so they will lend a hand. The price for this will be a lot of bitter pill swallowing on areas of concern for other nations (start with the International Criminal Court, climate change, and replacing Haliburton with foreign companies in the no-bid contracts for reconstruction). Is Bush ready to pony up there?
    c. reaching out to people in our country who support the vision but due to some intentionally divisive actions taken have been painted as less than loyal. This may require reversing the party line on prior actions such as making Homeland Security exempt from Civil Service laws, attacking organizations like Amnesty International who point out our flouting of international laws and standards of justice, etc. Is the White House ready to set its media lapdogs in reverse to make up to the people whose support is now needed?
    In simpler terms, the White House’s isolation on Iraq is the result of its deliberate choices. What is the White House going to do to repair the rifts it chose to make, beyond making speeches not worth the sound waves they are uttered on?

45. Bush is the white O.J. Simpson.
    Now, von….now that you helped to get O.J. off, you wish to spend billions searching for Nicole’s “real” killers?
    After getting O.J. Bush off, you now think justice is possible?

46. Hilzoy:

    DaveC: FWIW, I didn’t write about the Iraqi elections in large part because I was writing for both ObWi and Kevin Drum that day, and Shakespeare’s Sister got there before I did.

    So much time spent on researching your posts, but you are almost always able to find an excuse why you don’t write in support of your country, its troops or President.
    You may not be pro-AQ, but certainly you both try to use the resources at hand to make the the country, troops and President look bad.
    FDR used Stalin. It was a necessary evil of the time. But FDR eventually got out of bed with him. We both know that in 2008 Bush is gone and a Democrat is just as likely to get elected as a Republican. Why the dire need to align your attacks with AQ? Maybe your strategic attacks and AQ’s will diverge paths in 2008, but it sure looks ugly right now.

47. Maybe your strategic attacks and AQ’s will diverge paths in 2008, but it sure looks ugly right now.
    Yeah, you shouldn’t have had Al-Zarqawi do that guest blog spot. Even though the riff on ‘how many legs am I holding up?’ was pretty funny, I’m sure you’ll regret it later.

48. If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
    To be honest: I doubt that very much. When Lebanon slipped into chaos, I didn’t suffer. When Somalia collapsed, I didn’t suffer. When Ethiopia and Eritrea went to war, it had no effect on me whatever. When the Congo collapsed into a terrible haze of blood, my life was completely unchanged. The fact that 20% of young adults in Botswana are HIV positive is really not hurting me that much. For much of the 1990s I lived two hours away from bona fide concentration camps and mass graves, and my life was pretty well unchanged.
    If Iraq turns into a great big Lebanon, I won’t suffer. I’ll care, but I won’t suffer. Iraq is not an existential issue for any country not bordering on Iraq, and arguing it is simply makes the argument hysterical and unbalanced.

49. Why the dire need to align your attacks with AQ?
    pathetic. sickening.

50. Why the dire need to align your attacks with AQ?
    The benefits. We really need healthcare reform.

51. Von: “It’s worth noting that the pressure is now on the Democrats. Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose; yet, certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived). This is serious business, folks. It might make you feel better to dispense your “told you so’s.” But it won’t make us safer. ”
    Von, you claimed to have voted for Kerry, and have taken offence at my earlier criticism of you, as a case of waging intra-Dem warfare (IIRC, you claimed that Dems lost because we’d attack people like you, and alienate them).
    Now, considering the fatuousness of Bush’s speech, in relation to his policy for the past five years, and your post above, why should I believe you? Why shouldn’t I class you with Slartibartfast and Charles Bird?

52. Why shouldn’t I class you with Slartibartfast and Charles Bird?

    As what, may I ask? Human? Male? Rebel scum?

53. zzz: You’ll find that basically all of us supported the war in Afghanistan and continue to support the idea of a much more thorough reconstruction than Bush is interested in. It is because we are serious about bringing justice to those who attacked our country that we objected to the war in Iraq. The actual guilty parties are still out there, still launching attacks on innocent people throughout the world, and our country is busily stuck in an avoidable mess. The real help to Al Qaeda is Bush’s enthusiasm for the Iraq war; a president who was serious about Al Qaeda could have swept them up.

54. Von, you claimed to have voted for Kerry, and have taken offence at my earlier criticism of you, as a case of waging intra-Dem warfare
    FYI, I’m not (and never have been) a democrat. I was a founding member of my campus Libertarian party, and I’m currently best described as a liberal Republican.
    Why shouldn’t I class you with Slartibartfast and Charles Bird?
    I’d be honored to be so classed.

55. If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
    Most failed states find it very hard to mount an invasion. And they find it hard to build nukes also.

56. I think the posting rules should include some reference to two word or less posts. It’s not that I mind short posts, I just want to be sure who’s gettin’ their jammies jerked.
    Words are important, but action trumps words. The presidents actions rarely follow his words, excepting his stay the course words. If, of course, stay the course means nothing more than staying in Iraq.
    Katrina and NO are ancient history. Lots of words, no follow thru. Uniter not divider – no follow thru. We will capture or kill OBL – not yet, and off the radar, apparently. I will fire anyone who was part of outing Plane – uhhhh, not so’s you’d notice.
    Bush is long on talk, short on deeds. Except going to war. He’s good at going. Not so good at winning. Maybe if he could define it, he could go it. But he’s not long on definitions, either.
    Jake

57. Why the dire need to align your attacks with AQ?

    Please find an argument that’s not riddled with fallacy and stick with it. Is your argument that hilzoy is incorrect, or is it that she’s correct and ought to keep quiet about it? If the former, please tell us why you think she’s wrong. If the latter, then you really have no argument.
    It’s offensive even to the conservatives here. To this one, anyway.

58. I may be looking in all the wrong places on the interwebs, but I haven’t actually seen any firm numbers as to who actually won the Iraqi elections. Do we know yet who will be ruling Iraq, or are they still counting?

59. Von:
    I think that, among anti-Iraq war Dems, there is more play on the issue of whether to remove troops or not than you might think. But there is a deep reluctance to trust this Administration with anything. They haven’t earned it. They need to sell a specific plan to trusted politicians. That doesn’t include Lieberman. Increasingly, that doesn’t include Clinton. Tell them to go knock on Feingold’s door.

60. I liked what Laura Ingraham said on her radio show this morning: After defeating the Patriot Act in the Senate, Harry Reid was practically doing the Snoopy dance.
    Dems and their progressive friends seem to do a lot of that nowadays, whenever our national security takes a hit.

61. “certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived).”
    who, exactly? on what occasion, exactly? I hear this kind of thing all the time from war supporters, but I honestly don’t know of a genuine example of the purported behavior. Is this supposed to refer to people like Kerry and Murtha? In that case it is laughably false. But then who are you talking about? Serious people, please, not some commenter on DU or something.
    There is a huge difference between ‘delighting’ and grimly pointing out, again and again, that various reports of ‘progress’ are BS, or fantasy-based, or the nth repetition of a tired PR formula. Nobody is delighted about it.

62. Shorter Von

    Finally.Now that the president has done the hard part by giving a speech, the onus is on those who were against the war from the very start and who have no political power to pull the president’s fat out of…

63. The Sanity Inspector,
    Seeing as how Harry can’t get anything defeated without support from his colleagues across the aisle, I don’t think the Patriot Act is universally viewed as necessary to national security, even by Republicans.
    It certainly isn’t viewed as necesary by me.
    Jake

64. In the midst of all this “big picture, We Must Win” talk, Von, for once – ONCE – I’d like you to say EXACTLY how we’re GOING to win. Not just “more, more, more,” but an explanation of where “more” is going to come from – that is, are you or aren’t you calling for a draft – as well as an explanation of how “more” is going to help rather than just escalate the deterioration we’ve seen over the last three years.
    To say that the onus is now on Democrats is laughable. Republicans control all three branches of Congress. A Republican president is commander-in-chief. He’s offered no new solution to the mess we’re in, and neither have you.

65. Do we know yet who will be ruling Iraq, or are they still counting?
    It’s supposed to take a couple of weeks.
    When Lebanon slipped into chaos, I didn’t suffer. When Somalia collapsed, I didn’t suffer
    US lack of response to Lebanon and Somalia convinced Bin Laden that the US could not effectively respond to a direct attack.
    Why shouldn’t I class you with Slartibartfast and Charles Bird?
    von wants to be more like Jon Henke, I think.

66. The Sanity Inspector,
    If you care so much for America, why is Bush still President?
    You can’t support an irresponsible leader, like Bush, then claim you care for America.

67. “If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer.”
    Yes, hordes of Mohammedans bearing scimitars are poised to overrun our country and enslave us. OK, that’s unfair, but I do get more than a whiff of that kind of fear-mongering from Bush & co.
    Interesting how at least here, ‘succeeding in Iraq’ = ‘not letting it slip into chaos,’ since the danger of it slipping into chaos is due entirely to our actions in the first place. ‘Success’ = somehow avoiding the natural consequences of our own incompetence.

68. So Von, when do you sign up for your tour of duty in Iraq?

69. NeoDude: You can’t support an irresponsible leader, like Bush, then claim you care for America.
    I know it is hard for you and me to understand why someone would think Bush is anything but reckless, but it is clear to me, and should be clear to you, that folks such as The Insanity Inspector do hold that view. Please bear this in mind before you make comments such as the one above.

70. I think von has a valid point about the ball being in our Democratic court. The party line from the Republican leadership is that they want to win and the Democrats want to lose. It doesn’t matter if there is any truth in this or not. It’s their narrative and they will say it over and over and over. The ball IS in the Democratic court to counter this narrative or we will be labelled losers.
    The problem with discussing the Iraq war is it isn’t as simple as “for it or agin it”. A person could have opposed the original invasion but feel a sense of obligation to try to be construtive now. A person could have supported the original invasion and feel that we have no choice but to leave now given Bush’s lies and incompetence. A person could conclude that we can’t do anything positive there or that we can, within limits, still have a positive effect, and of course there are all kinds of definitions of positive effect. Bush has never honestly stated his goals so there really isn’t any way to define winning or losing. Also, there is disagreement amongst well informed people about the effects of a gradual pullout. Some people think withdrawal could help bring stability, others the opposite. The whole debate is further confused by the discrepancy between what politicians say for domestic spin and what they really mean.
    Anyway I don’t think von falls in the catagory of people who just mindlessly chant “We must win!” out of nationalistic vanity.
    I think a lot depends on the outcome of this election and I am anxiously awaiting the results.

71. Hal: So Von, when do you sign up for your tour of duty in Iraq?
    This is uncalled for and counterproductive.

72. zzz: “You may not be pro-AQ, but….” in reference to Hilzoy.
    Must you dance around this point? If Hilzoy is pro-AQ, let’s get it in precise terms, so the U.S. Government can take her into custody. I mean, she might be casing the Brooklyn Bridge as we speak.
    After all, you may not be whatever is I’m thinking you are right now, but you sure use the resources at hand to appear that way.
    C’mon, say what’s on your mind. Coy gets old.
    The nice thing is, if Von is pro-torture and Hilzoy is pro-AQ, that puts me in the moderate middle. Who knew?
    I suspect if Von were pro-torture, he would tell us. In fact, I think I’d be chained to his basement wall at this moment, yelling through my hood. But I’m not, so rest assured. Von is no more pro-torture than DaveC is racist, sadistic, and whatever else he reads or doesn’t read in the papers about himself.
    Von likes Bush but didn’t vote for him last time. Von can’t stand Kerry, but wouldn’t torture him, and voted for him last time. This I can live with.
    zzz, I’d like to point out that, over at Redstate and other places of the same ilk, you can get support for the President, the troops, and our country 24/7 and be banned for any deviation.
    Oddly enough, I charge many of the denizens of the those sites with being pro-AQ as well, in a funny sort of way, given that Al Qaeda is the best thing that’s ever happened to George W. Bush and the Republican Party’s view of, well, everything. There is something very Gordon Liddyish about the entire Al Qaeda phenomenon. You know, that something so evil could be so good for a certain segment of the American population.
    I do wish that, however, that someone would give a Dem or two some credit for George W. Bush’s recent public relations condescension.

73. Lily: The thing is, having a viable plan, both likely to solve Iraq’s problems and obtainable within the constraints of current American politics, wouldn’t get the Democrats any respect or consideration from the Republicans. Truth doesn’t matter to Bush, or to those who guide his campaigns and policy-making. Anything will get the treatment that Kerry got, that Cleland got, that Murtha got, that anyone and anything that might be inconvenient to them gets. They’re willing to make alleged pederasts out of people who help orphans, after all.
    If they ever wanted to get help from outside, then yes, there would be a big Democratic burden to provide it. But not until they are.

74. von, I keep rereading your post, and there is something I just don’t get – what are the consequences to the US of “losing” in Iraq? These are your words:
    ‘All in good fun, I suppose. But here’s the rub: it’s not just another talking point to say things like “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq.” It’s the truth.’
    I don’t get the “It’s the truth.” part. I don’t even get what our exposure is, but I surely don’t get what you believe to be the truth. I think you need to explain that part. Or at least point to someplace where you expand your statement. An assertion of “truth” doesn’t transmorgrify a belief, even a strongly held belief, into a fact.
    Jake

75. “I may be looking in all the wrong places on the interwebs, but I haven’t actually seen any firm numbers as to who actually won the Iraqi elections. Do we know yet who will be ruling Iraq, or are they still counting?”
    Posted by: ThirdGorchBro
    Please note that the winner of the elections won’t necessarily be rulling all of Iraq; the Kurds have their section, the Shiite militias/parties have theirs, and the Sunnis are conducting a war.

76. They’re willing to make alleged pederasts out of people who help orphans, after all.
    What, looking into a UN scandal! is suddenly proof that Truth doesn’t matter to Bush???

77. DaveC, we’re talking about Karl Rove, and his history of political scumminess.

78. “I disagree, and not just because it sounds like a stupid idea.”
    Probably the dumbest sentence I’ll read today. If you’re going to question-beg – wait, sorry – when you question-beg, you might as well do it less obviously.
    “The only question we have to answer is what to do now to give us the best chance of winning (or, at least, not losing) Iraq. Some say that pulling out will give us the best chance of victory.”
    Here the switch from “not losing” to “victory” is a slightly subtler beg and more successful rhertorically.
    “We have to succeed in Iraq.”
    Unfortunately repeating the beg only makes it weaker. The reader has an extra chance to say to himself or herself, “Hey, isn’t it actually correct to say we have to do as well as we can with the resources we have but not make things worse or throw good money after bad? Isn’t good leadership more important than reaching an outcome acceptable to von? Is a face-saving result there more important than all other issues facing this nation put together?”

79. If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
    Funny how this applies to your post and Pres. Bush’s remarks in spades — since neither you nor Bush has expressed anything rational on how to get out of this mess.
    His “long awwaited” speech is full of nonsense and baloney. It is Bush’s policies for the last three years that have pushed Iraq to the brink of chaos, and it is his refusal to do anything meaningful about it that is guaranteeing failure. What is also guaranteeing failure is the empty-headedness of Republicans who, like lemmings, simply follow his nonsense over the cliff. Trumpeting Bush’s remarks is simply making yourself a cheerleader to nonsense. Blasting those who point out the illogic of Bush’s posture is third grade stuff.
    Von — you have yet to engage realistically the substantive criticisms of Bush’s posture and “strategy.” (hint — there isn’t one).
    Blubbering about how your critics seem to want failure is a repeat of the cheap rhetoric of Bush, who advocates fluff and empty platitudes, and then chides his critics who point out the obvious as allegedly being against “victory.” Again, third grade stuff.
    It seems you have joined those who prefer this rhetorical spin for domestic political advantage over any serious discussion in how to resolve the giant mess, which by the way, is the result of three years of vacuous political manipulation by Bush instead of serious analysis of these issues.
    Why are you against victory, Von?

80. Bruce, I know the truth doesn’t matter to the Republican leadership. I thought I said so. The Democrats still need to assert themselves so that they are not labeled as the losers. Spin is as important to Democrats as it is to
    Republicans.
    And, of course, spin is different than policy. I don’t know what our policy should be and it doesn’t matter to me that the Democrats don’t have a unified policy. I do think Demcrats should be unified in condemning the initial invasion and Bush’s conduct of the war. I also think Democrats should be unified in seeking a result that is satisfactory to most Iraqis, if we are still able to influence events there. I realize how vague that is. I like the legislative initiative put forth by some Democrats and Republicans which asks the Iraqis to set a time line for our withdrawal.

81. This point needs elaboration.
    Let’s imagine, for a moment, that some Democrat came up with what is in objective terms a brilliant, solid plan for achieving a peaceful, free and democratic Iraq. The rub here is that their plan departs dramatically from Bush’s. It involves a phased withdrawal on no specific timetable, keyed rather to specific, well-defined milestones of accomplishment–but makes it clear to the Iraqi people that we /are/ leaving and that we are doing so when we’re discharged the debt to them that we took on when we shattered their country and toppled their government. Moreover, it lays out concrete plans and preliminary budget numbers on the new allocation of resources, involves targeted spending cuts and repeals of tax cuts in order to pay for these, and does away with all no-bid contracts in Iraq in favor of employing, whenever possible, native Iraqi professionals who may not be as efficient as large multinationals, but have the benefit of pouring hard-earned capital into the Iraqi economy and providing work and pride for its people.
    It’s not like these are new ideas; if you look hard enough you can find every single one of the things I’ve mentioned above laid out in detail by one liberal or another on the web. You can find each of these elements in the Iraq position papers of various Democratic politicians. So let’s imagine that some Democratic Congressman, or the 2008 Dem presidential nominee, came up with something like this. What do you suppose will happen?
    The Republican slime machine will swing into action. Because these positions differ from Bush’s stay-the-course-to-victory pablum, and in fact are in direct opposition to many of the stances his administration has wedded themselves to, they will be attacked. For proposing a phased withdrawal and publicly defined milestones, they’ll be attacked as cut-and-run Defeatocrats. For cutting out Halliburton and other such MNCs in favor of local Iraqis, they’ll be attacked as parroting the anti-Halliburton, MoveOn.org/Michael Moore lines, and not willing to give the Iraqi people the best service they can have for the sake of ideology. The spending cuts would undoubtedly be in areas the Republicans would not want (many of our spending priorities are simply different), and repealing the tax cuts would instantly demand that the Pavlovian response of railing against “tax hikes”.
    So no, Von–no, thank you. You want the Democrats to come up with a viable plan for victory in Iraq? Help elect Democrats to Congress and the White House. Because until the GOP chokehold on our government has been broken, even the most brilliant Democratic plan for Iraq will be used by the GOP as fodder for electoral maneuvering simply because it came from the mouth of a Democrat.

82. This is hilarious, there is a long front page post up on redstate right now purporting to defend the President that starts out with accusing leftists of not reading the constitution and then notes that, if you actually read the constitution, you will apparently find:
    it’s important to understand that the Constitution explicitly states (Article 1, section 9) that the President has the right, in cases of “Rebellion or Ivasion” or “when the public safety may require it” to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. In other words, the President is Constitutionally authorized, under certain circumstances, to allow the federal Government to throw you in jail without even explaining to you why you are there.
    I’d correct him but I’m not allowed to post there anymore.

83. And I’m sorry, that last comment was off-topic.

84. Lily: What I mean is, the Democrats will be labeled as losers by the Republicans whatever they do, and the press’s “X vs. Y” format will get that label out without meaningful challenge. There’s outreach to Republicans willing to admit that Bush has made ghastly, fundamental errors that greatly diminish the chances of getting to his declared goals, as well as gravely damaging the division of labor intrinsic to the Constitution…but if they’re not willing to say “yes, there’s a big problem”, then again, I’m not sure what my solutions can do.
    It’s hard to help people who don’t want help.

85. DaveC:
    Really, who can say I prosecuted the GWOT perfectly? So what if Bush has not.
    Translation. So what if Bush has prosecuted the GWOT like a complete moron.
    Just another lowering of the bar moment — it reminds me of the old Monty Python skit about “upper class twit of the year,” in which the twits have to leap over a line of matchboxes. If Bush can do that, I guess he’s OK and should win the twit of the year award and declare victory in the GWOT. Who are we to disagree?

86. Hilzoy: I responded in kind to von’s own profanity in his update I. You can cite all the rules you like, but when a post’s author himself defiles the discourse, it rings utterly hollow. Catchall strawman ascriptions like his deserve nothing less than the measured “fuck you” he received from me.
    More to the point, Laura Warandpiece’s interlocutor is correct. In a universe in which Iraqi reconstruction really was a flower-and-sweet-strewn cakewalk, not a soul would have paid attention to Russ “the only vote against the PATRIOT Act” Feingold when the latest police-state monstrosity came down from the executive. For 300 million Americans, 1936 would rapidly be approaching. What’s more important to you — the freedom of your three hundred million fellow citizens, or the mealymouthed necessity of “victory”?
    I’ll take liberty, please. You can keep the circumscribed discourse of the Soviet apparatchik all to yourself.

87. wcw: somehow, I don’t see the choice between liberty and respecting the posting rules as one I have to make. I can, and did, respond to von’s first update without violating them. Since you feel it’s forced on you, and strike another blow for liberty in your latest comment, I’m responding in my typical mealy-mouthed apparatchik-like way.

88. Well yes, you are right, we will be labeled as losers no matter what. In fact I think the increase in “Democrats are losers” talk is an inadvertant admission that the Republicans are expecting to lose and they want to blame us.

89. “upper class twit of the year,”
    Enough of them to go around on both, on all sides.
    I try to keep this in mind:

    History, as we know, is always bias, because human beings have to be studied by other human beings, not by independent observers of another species.

    Link

90. without reading the comments…pressed for time, unfortunately, but compelled to respond to Von.
    I was working while the president spoke, but stopped cold when he addressed those of us who opposed the war. I appreciated that he did so without questioning my patriotism, something many of his supporters should do more often.
    I also appreciated his more humble tone and his (finally) taking responsibility for his mistakes.
    I don’t think it was quite enough yet…we have to see this tone and stance continue throughout the coming months…but overall I would hope this is a much needed first step in uniting Dems and Repubs in the effort to restore peace to Iraq and work toward an eventual, sensible withdrawal.
    “Victory” is totally irrelevant to me at this point. It’s a hollow, ludicrous spiking of the football in the endzone when there are multiple penalty flags back on the field. If there’s one thing I think the president should still do it’s tone down the “victory” talk.
    In the realworld sense, it’s ludicrous to imagine the US would feel compelled to celebrate a military “victory” over a third world country. In a unifying sense, declarations of “victory” often tend to make those who supported the war feel they were justified all along, erasing a good deal of their memories about why it was such a fiasco along the way and teaching us nothing.
    The President I saw last night might have been more of the same choreographed theatrics I’ve been taught to expect, but he looked perhaps like a much wiser man than the one who ordered the invasion.
    I hope so…but I’m a long way from taking that on faith.

91. As far as Democrats fighting the “loser” label….Democracy Arsenal has a post on this subject that is worth reading. Also DailyKos has been tracking the races of nine “fighting Democrats”, Iraq vets running on our ticket. I used to tithe monthly to animal causes but since Oct. my tithing has been going to various Fighting Dems.

92. But here’s the rub: it’s not just another talking point to say things like “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq.” It’s the truth. It remains the truth regardless of whether the decision to go to war in Iraq was stupid, smart, or somewhere in between. If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
    Apologies in advance for (1) piling on; and (2) playing my old familiar song. But this is almost exactly what was said about Vietnam, and it was flat wrong.
    We can debate – and I’d be happy to, if anyone wants to play that game – whether we could ever have “won” in Vietnam (my position: no), or whether the world would have been better or worse if we had got out sooner or “stayed the course.” But the fact is that we did get out, the “worst case” scenario followed (as far as official US policy was concerned), and the US survived, with no large-scale “suffering” arising from the loss. For that matter, Vietnam survived, and has now joined ASEAN and is encouraging tourism and foreign investment. Not the most wonderful country – though worth a visit, IMHO – but not an absolute hell on earth, or a successful center of subversion of the entire region, either.
    So why – other than the evident sincerity of von’s assertion – that “losing” Iraq would be any more devastating to us? So devastating that it requires us to continue fighting indefinitely, presumably pouring even more resources (including personnel) into it if needed? So devastating that any opposition to such continuation can be condemned as treasonous?

93. von: vis a vis your updates, I’d like to pose a simple question that, AFAIK, has not yet been asked of you:
    For what reason or reasons do you believe that the path to victory in Iraq does not begin with the impeachment of President Bush?
    Please confine your responses to known policy positions of the Bush Administration or reasonable extrapolations thereof, as well as realistic scenarios in Iraq and elsewhere. And be as explicit as you can.
    This isn’t a trick question, btw, nor am I claiming by its posing that victory has as its prerequisite the impeachment of the President. [I don’t think we can “win” in Iraq irrespective of who’s President, as I’ve mentioned previously.] I’m just trying to ascertain what exactly you think victory is going to entail and, concretely, why you think the President is going to succeed in enacting this.

94. Edward: “In a unifying sense, declarations of “victory” often tend to make those who supported the war feel they were justified all along, erasing a good deal of their memories about why it was such a fiasco along the way and teaching us nothing.”
    This is one of my biggest fears. I truly hope that out of all this mess there emerges a unified , democratic Iraq. The Iraqi people deserve a good outcome after what we have done to them.
    Yet, I fear that it will be seen as justifying our initial invasion and occupation and all the wrong-headed things we did during the process.
    However, it would not do any of those things.
    Our incursion would still have been wrong, period. Legally, morally and national security wise, it was wrong. But I very much fear all that would be forgotten.
    It does not, von’s statement aside, make me derive any joy at any set-back. If anything, it makes me even more sad when such setbacks happen, knowing they could have and should have been avoided either by our not being there in the first place, or at the least, being there in a competent way.
    Last night, Bush stated that the process is more difficult than expected. I am assuming that he is referring to about 5 or 6 people, including himself. Most of the world, including the State Department, the CIA, the other countries in the Middle East, Europe etc, knew it was not going to be a cake-walk. Yet that is the only thing they planned for.
    I think the phrase is “criminal negligence.”

95. We can debate – and I’d be happy to, if anyone wants to play that game – whether we could ever have “won” in Vietnam (my position: no)…
    Clio was wearing a mini-skirt today, huh?

96. Lily: Gotcha…and looking back after a couple more exchanges, I see that I agreed after all. Thanks for being willing to keep at it, and graciously. Very much appreciated.

97. I was so going to misquote von as “We have to succeed in Vietnam” above, but why argue about something we disagree on using an analogy to different event we disagree on?
    Final pile-on question, since von points out his opposition to torture – what if we have to torture to succeed in Iraq? Or support torturers?

98. “Why shouldn’t I class you with Slartibartfast and Charles Bird?”
    As what, may I ask? Human? Male? Rebel scum?
    Magically delicious.

99. I may be looking in all the wrong places on the interwebs, but I haven’t actually seen any firm numbers as to who actually won the Iraqi elections. Do we know yet who will be ruling Iraq, or are they still counting?
    This is from the Grauniad but even modulo that, this doesn’t bode well: “Suspected polling violations on voting day last week far exceeded the number in Iraq’s first election in January, local and international monitors said yesterday….”

100. A few commentators ask why I think that losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US. Here’s why:
     1. An unstable Iraq will be (and already is) a harbor and breeding ground for terrorists. Think Afghanistan, but on a much larger scale.
     2. An unstable Iraq may destabalize friendly regimes (such as in Jordan) and putative allies (Saudi Arabia), and create a power vacuum for Iran to fill.
     3. A loss in Iraq provides AQ a strategic victory, emboldens our enemies, and sends the wrong message to our partners in the region.
     4. A loss in Iraq increase the risk to Israel, making a confrontation between Israel and its neighbors more likely. Given that Israel is already nuclear-armed, and Iran may soon be as well, this would carry dire risks for the region.
     5. A loss in Iraq would cause immense human suffering, largely bourne by ordinary Iraqis.

101. hilzoy: the difference between the US and the old USSR is that the law in the US, while written by and for capital, is and has been very evenhandedly enforced. The old Soviet laws, whose elegance and idealism practically sparkled, were an ugly joke due to their systematically capricious enforcement.
     Not only haven’t you banned von for his profaning the discourse, on this comments thread alone I note at least one commenter’s use of that deadly threat to reason, the f-word, without his being banned.
     I can only conclude that you think the word “apparatchik” is a profanity. Please ban yourself from posting.
     Oh, wait, sorry — don’t. I prefer that prove true my critique of your systematically capricious enforcement of elegant and idealistic rules.
     Schmuck.

102. Von- You need to stop being such a loser-defeatist. All of those points 1-5 are already the case and will continue to be so as long as we have troops in Iraq. (At least with the current President.)
     What you fail to see is that we are WINNING the war on terror.

103. For what reason or reasons do you believe that the path to victory in Iraq does not begin with the impeachment of President Bush?
     I don’t get the question. How does impeachment relate to this debate? Is the assumption that Bush’s policies are blocking victory?
     Apologies in advance for (1) piling on; and (2) playing my old familiar song. But this is almost exactly what was said about Vietnam, and it was flat wrong.
     Ahh, Vietnam. I recommend to you Melvin Laird’s “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam” in the last issue of Foreign Affairs. As he points out, Vietnamization was actually working — South Vietnam was defending itself against a much larger and better funded foe, peace talks were ongoing, etc. — until the U.S. Congress cut funding in 1975. On the same day, the communists walked out of the negotiating room and all hopes for a settlement were lost: the South had been stripped of the means to defend itself.
     Pushing forward does not necessarily win wars, but no war has ever been won by walking away.

104. as well as a pop-offs about my purported pro-torture propensities.
     Not a single commenter here accused you of pro-torture propensities, von. So, sans guilty conscience or play for sympathy there’s no reason to say someone did. I wrote “Certain Republicans give the appearance of delighting in torture.” If you object to that statement, well, then look to the spike in your own eye first.
     If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
     No shinola Sherlock. The time to think about that would’ve been 2002 or 3. Anyway, no hard feelings, von–it really doesn’t matter what any of us say here; the damage is done, the fate of Iraq is largely out of our hands now and the Boy King doesn’t have any more of a clue of what to now than he did four years ago.
     But maybe the “Finally” of your title should also refer to Mr. Bush finally admitting he thinks he can do anything he wants. On Friday, George Bush stated that he knowingly bypassed Congress in order to assume dictatorial, unconstitutional powers, that he was proud he did it, and would do it again. Set against the President’s French farce of a foreign policy, this would be hilarious if it weren’t so offensive–no President has ever claimed supreme authority more eagerly than George W. Bush, yet been so incompetent as exercising the authority he already has.

105. A few commentators ask why I think that losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US.
     Shifting the goalposts, von. The issue isn’t whether losing in Iraq will be a net bad — that’s pretty flipping obvious — it’s whether the specter of losing in Iraq warrants the particular investiture of effort it will require (an investiture which I note once again you shy away from describing in concrete terms) for the probability of avoiding that outcome (see above re my question of impeachment).

106. “It would have done a lot more good right after the election;…”
     Maybe, timing issues can be debated ad nauseum. However, with the MSM and liberal fringe working staunchly against the WOT effort, I think he needed to wait until the successes started to mount.
     “It might make you feel better to dispense your “told you so’s.” But it won’t make us safer.”
     Stick to your guns here, Von. The hue and cry will be loud, and loud is an affective tactic. Even if affect isn’t intent, your assessment is still accurate.
     “Does this mean we airkiss “bygones” and rally behind the President?”
     I’ve always wondered about the “hate Bush” crowd and their motives. I see threads of history where this is certainly not a new phenomena, even in colonial and civil war times. It just amazes me the number of people who will knowingly distort or rationalize for their cause, especially the zealots.
     “By criticizing some commentators for missing the big picture, I do not mean to criticize them all.”
     There are, I suppose, a certain number of sheep. But not many in these circles. These folks aren’t ‘missing’ anything. There is an agenda.
     Von, I compliment you for sticking it out here. You’re moderate enough to duck most of the bird crap, but your supporters are few. It would be easier to find a chorus to sing with.
     And lily – “Well yes, you are right, we will be labeled as losers no matter what. In fact I think the increase in “Democrats are losers” talk is an inadvertant admission that the Republicans are expecting to lose and they want to blame us.”
     Yes, Yes, Not!

107. von, thanks for responding. I won’t debate each issue – you take each of them as an article of faith, and there is no debating faith. 🙂
     BUT – the scenario you portray, in each of its specifics, is just one possible outcome. I don’t believe (my article of faith) that it is even the most likely outcome. Is it the most harmful outcome? Quite possibly, and I am a firm believer in playing the odds, which means multiplying the probabilities by the potential harm to arrive at some sort of bad news index. I haven’t done the math; I don’t know that such a calc is even possible.
     One thing I think is true – you, and many on your side of this particular divide, do not seem to accord the Iraqis much influence in the endstate of their own state. It reads to me as should the US “fail”, the Iraqis are doomed. I kind of think that is another kind of white man knows best racism. Surely the Iraqis can influence their own future? Surely they care about how it all works out even more than we do?
     Jake
     Jake

108. I don’t get the question. How does impeachment relate to this debate? Is the assumption that Bush’s policies are blocking victory?
     It’s the fact that Bush’s policies thus far have been counterproductive towards achieving victory, however ill-defined, coupled with the Bush Administration’s well-documented intransigence when it comes to taking advice from external sources. Essentially, I’m looking for something you see in the Bush Administration more tangible than a pretty speech that gives you reason to believe that the Administration is capable of attaining the kind of victory you desire.*
     * “you desire” here because, given how ill-defined “victory” is vis a vis Iraq, I’m not assuming anything about anyone’s definitions any more.
     Ahh, Vietnam. I recommend to you Melvin Laird’s “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam” in the last issue of Foreign Affairs.
     Can I take it you missed that dr ngo is both a historian of South-East Asia and has already commented on the Laird article previously? That thread also contains a rather thorough decimation by Doctor Slack and others; worth a read.

109. first this: However, with the MSM and liberal fringe working staunchly against the WOT effort
     then this: It just amazes me the number of people who will knowingly distort or rationalize for their cause, especially the zealots.

110. Cleek, nice catch.
     It is what psychologists call projection.
     A disorder very common, though not universal, among the zealots of the right.

111. Could somebody ban wcw for a day already, please?

112. All in good fun, I suppose. But here’s the rub: it’s not just another talking point to say things like “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq.” It’s the truth. It remains the truth regardless of whether the decision to go to war in Iraq was stupid, smart, or somewhere in between. If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer. You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.
     It takes a certain kind of person to toss this little rhetorical grenade. To note that, whether it was right or wrong — and the implicit assumption, the way I read it, is that it was wrong — to invade Iraq, we’re at the point where we Absolutely Have To Win. Then to go on and claim that the “pressure,” the responsibility for winning, is somehow on the side that not only couldn’t have prevented our going in in the first place — avoiding being in the position we’re in — but can’t do anything at all to affect the outcome now!
     Yep. A certain kind of person.

113. Everytime I see Bush’s face I always think of this quote:
     “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made…”
     From The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

114. “We and our children will suffer. You will suffer.”
     von will become a Christian Buddhist yet.

115. Thank you for that reasoned reply, von. I disagree with you: my responses are below.
     1. An unstable Iraq will be (and already is) a harbor and breeding ground for terrorists. Think Afghanistan, but on a much larger scale.
     I would say that major attacks can be organised and executed without the need for a harbour area. 9/11 conspirators such as Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh operated in Hamburg, not Afghanistan, and none were Afghan nationals. Most of the trainees who passed through the camps in Afghanistan ended up fighting in Afghanistan itself.
     2. An unstable Iraq may destabilize friendly regimes (such as in Jordan) and putative allies (Saudi Arabia), and create a power vacuum for Iran to fill.
     Ah, the domino theory!
     It is difficult to see how, to be honest. The states of the Middle East are the most stable in the world; changes of government are rarer there than anywhere else. And having an unstable state on your border doesn’t necessarily mean that instability will bleed over – Kenya, for example, or Hungary in the 1990s.
     3. A loss in Iraq provides AQ a strategic victory, emboldens our enemies, and sends the wrong message to our partners in the region.
     “We must win everything, because every time we lose, our opponents win” is not the basis for a sane foreign policy. You refrain from naming these enemies; who are they, apart from AQ?
     4. A loss in Iraq increase the risk to Israel, making a confrontation between Israel and its neighbors more likely. Given that Israel is already nuclear-armed, and Iran may soon be as well, this would carry dire risks for the region.
     That really sucks. If you are in the region. We are not. See my original post.
     5. A loss in Iraq would cause immense human suffering, largely borne by ordinary Iraqis.
     Again, sucks to be them, but doesn’t really make us any less safe, does it?
     There are two other points that you have missed.
     First, made above, is that, even if you show the fall of Iraq to be a net bad, it is a long stretch from that to “we cannot afford to fail”. A change in WTO rules on trade dispute resolution, for example, might well be a net bad for the US. But that doesn’t mean it would be the end of the world.
     Second, you ignore the other side of the netting. It is conceivable that, was the US not spending billions every year in Iraq, it might be able to do something with the money instead that would produce more safety per dollar. Again, an example: not building solid gold levees around New New Orleans would make the city less safe; but with the money saved, you might be able to, say, build normal levees instead.

116. I think von’s list is pretty persuasive. He could add the possibility that other countries will take sides and that the war could spread.
     But I would like to propose another list; dangerous effects of our protracted military ivolvement in Iraq.
     1. increase anti-American feeling among Middle Easterners
     2. continue recruiting for Al-Quaida
     3. Possibly be locked into supporting a Shiite government that becomes more and more like Saddam’s as frustration over the insurgency mounts
     4. bankrupt ourselves
     5. continued to be mired in a war that doesn’t really have anything to do with fighting terrorism
     6. remain distracted from helping Afganistan
     7. continue the erosion of our civil liberties here at home
     8. continue ruining our reputation and national honor as more horror stories about torture and unfair imprisionment emerge
     and so on. Of course my list is predicated on the assumption that continued commitment to Iraq will mean continued fighting there. The point is that there is a trade-off, that remaining committed in order to prevent one list of bad outcomes means that we head in the direction of other bad outcomes.
     The best thing that could happen, I think, is for the election results to give the Sunnis enough of a stake to feel they can support the new government, followed by a request from the Iraqis that we set up with them a withdrawal plan of some sort.
     I’m not sure we have enough control over events there to make the difference one way or the other.

117. You say this is serious, but you give no indication of believing it’s so. You see politics in the focus of Limpbowel, Moore and other partisans, the blue team and the red team.
     It’s not up to the Democrats.
     Pragmatically it’s up to the administration, but beyond that it’s up to members of all (not just 2) parties and not partieswho have useful ideas. The leadership of both is primarily dysfunctional and yet you want to place the debate in this tiresome game.
     The election went well. We now have to see what events follow. General Odom (head of NSA under reagon) argued in his advocacy of “cut and run” that at this point the iranian associated parties of DAWA and SCIRI would cement their positions.
     You claim to represent some “reasonable” position, but you simply broad brish the argument for leaving and don’t address the specific points of individuals like Odom. Yes *many* opponents of the war are equally vague, but we need assertions that can be checked against what facts we have and disputed and studied.
     Whether we stay or leave hundreds of decisions need to made and attempted to make the situation as tolerable as possible. And yes this involves milestones and timelines, because failure to meet timelines means problems. It doesn’t mean that these deal with the entire preocess, but the upcoming stages should be mapped. But it seems that people like you side with the Republicans who argue that Roosevelt wwas incmpetent because D Day involved timeslines and mile stones and this is just fuzzy, wuzzy “university management” because in the real world you can’t deal with complexity so you can’t really make plans.
     It’s up to the president to lay these out.

118. cleek – “first this: However, with the MSM and liberal fringe working staunchly against the WOT effort
     then this: It just amazes me the number of people who will knowingly distort or rationalize for their cause, especially the zealots.”
     I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. It just amazes me the number of people who will knowingly distort or rationalize for their cause, especially the zealots.

119. Unbelievable. 11 months ago, we suffer through the hyping of the Purple Finger Revolution. We sit and suffer being called defeatists and cynics and partisans, as the Republicans and the fools they sucker all shout how we really have turned the corner in Iraq.
     We don’t think it’s a significant sign of progress because we never doubted that our military, brave and great as it is, could manage such successes. No doubt, we can secure specific areas for set lengths of time. But we could’ve done that the day we entered Iraq. That’s how good our men and women are.
     Now Von is willing to point to yet more successful elections as the sign that we have really, finally, I-mean-it-this-time broken through? More than that, he suggests that the Iraqi forces, the same ones that the Administration have been long saying are on the verge of being ready, are really, finally, I-mean-it-this-time on the verge of being ready?
     Look, maybe you really believe that progress is being made; maybe you believe in the importance of this mission; the justice of our cause; or whatever else. Fine. I’ll disagree with you in some ways, agree with you in others, and we can have that argument. But doesn’t it take a rather remarkable kind of idiot to suddenly believe the President Who Cries Wolf?

120. It is inconceivable that New Orleans should be allowed to vanish, from economic and humanitarian viewpoints. Yet Bush and the GOP are well on their way to this. Barring some plan, Bush will screw it up.
     If the right wing truly believes that what is happening now is winning, there is not much room for debate. As a lefty I just tell you for your own good to get the buffoons in charge to get it done quickly, because I do not think you have much time left with the public. Bush is looking like a loser more each day he shreds the Constitution again.

121. Von: I’m going to try this again. HOW do you expect to win? If you want more troops, for example, where are those troops going to come from? Are you asking for a draft?
     It’s not enough to point out that losing will be bad. You have to demonstrate that winning is possible at this point, and for that you need an actual plan to win.

122. Pushing forward does not necessarily win wars, but no war has ever been won by walking away.
     Many, however, have been not-lost-as-badly by doing so.
     And put me down for a temp ban on wcw, too.

123. Morat, you also need to watch the language. The rules aren’t exactly a new thing, after all.
     Wcw, feel free to appeal to the kitty if you want to be able to post again. You ask for tighter adherence to the rules, we hasten to comply.
     Then again, hilzoy may remove your ban in a day or so out of sheer capriciousness. You just never know.

124. I had a chat offline with wcw – he seems like an ok guy, I don’t know where the anger above comes from (well, jftr I was pretty unhappy myself reading “certain Democrats” etc.) Anyway, he does not appear to have any interest in returning.

125. “But here’s the rub: it’s not just another talking point to say things like “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq.” It’s the truth.”
     No, it’s not. We can debate just how badly the Middle East, and the world, and the U.S., would be hurt by various levels of failure in Iraq, but it is not an existential threat unless you can demonstrate that “the terrorists” (and I really need to write a rant about the, ah, unhelpfulness of lumping endlessly disparate groups into such a nebulous, almost content-free term, but I digress) are capable of posing an actual existential threat to the U.S. (or your choice of other power).
     “Great damage and trouble” is not an existential threat. No combination of terrorists is going to wipe out the U.S.
     And we can “afford” anything less than just that. And then we’re back to debating what risk we want to afford. (And then what our practical options are, rather than our dreams and preferences.)
     As it turns out, I assure you that people can afford to not afford an awful lot of things, when they have little or no choice.
     But to convince me you’re right in your repeated assertions that “But here’s the rub: it’s not just another talking point to say things like “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq,” first demonstrate to me how “the terrorists” will be destroying our country and posing a greater threat than the Axis Powers did.
     I’ll wait. (Though if I’m not posting here, you might drop me an e-mail, if you like, so I don’t miss the attempted proof; it definitely needs to be beyond argument-by-assertion, though.)
     None of which makes me disagree that I think it would be a mistake to, say, issue orders to imediately begin pulling out all U.S. troops tomorow as rapidly as physically possible. But that’s not what we’re talking about. (I generally hate it when people go off the cliff when they have a decent argument, but throw themselves far beyond where it’s decent, which is what you’re doing by so exaggerating the “there is no choice”; there are, in fact, many choices, pretty much all bad; which is least bad is the reasonable question.)

126. I’m reading John Keegan’s Six Armies in Normandy, and was struck by his account of the Canadian army’s experience. In 1942, one of their divisons took part in a disastrous raid on Dieppe, implementing most of the then-current strategy for a full-bore invasion across the Channel. It basically ceased to be. When the time came for Normandy, Hitler and his generals expected a repeat of the same general policy of seizing a port. But the Allied high command did the opposite: they aimed for a stretch of coast with as few ports as possible. And they made other changes, to avoid repeating the World War I error of treating “more of the same” as a viable methodology. In 1944, the Canadian division did quite well.
     All of this stands in very sharp contrast to the way Bush and his administration make war.
     (The Keegan book is great reading, by the way. As always, he writes with a rich interest in how it felt to be there, at that spot, at that moment, not knowing the big picture, or not knowing the small one, dealing with one’s duties and responsibilities, explaining what you’d be remembering and responding to. It’s a deeply humane sort of history.)

127. Hilzoy: I responded in kind to von’s own profanity in his update I. You can cite all the rules you like, but when a post’s author himself defiles the discourse, it rings utterly hollow. Catchall strawman ascriptions like his deserve nothing less than the measured “fuck you” he received from me.

     Translation: rules for others do not apply to me, because I am more morally self-righteous!

128. “History, as we know, is always bias, because human beings have to be studied by other human beings, not by independent observers of another species.”
     So say you; I recommend Encyclopedia Galactica, the choice of every tasteful sapient in the Galaxy!
     “A few commentators ask why I think that losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US.”
     Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
     I don’t think you’re in the least being consciously dishonest, but do you not realize that this is utterly not the same as claiming “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq”?
     This one, of course, is a statement most anyone with three brain-cells would not disagree with, and find no more controversial than saying “grass is green.”
     It is so palming a card to come back with that substitute straw claim about what the problem is with your repeated “we have no choice but victory” assertions. Perhaps you subsequently withdraw or defend your actual claim; it’s a long thread, and I’m skimming a bit (and not wanting to spend all afternoon at this).

129. blogbudsman:
     It just amazes me the number of people who will knowingly distort or rationalize for their cause, especially the zealots.
     Let’s see. “knowingly distort;” … “rationalize for the cause”… “zealots” … Sounds like the description of Buah and his war supporters!!
     Funny how righty brickbats are so self-descriptive.

130. It takes a certain kind of person to toss this little rhetorical grenade.
     Yes. It takes an existentialist.

131. von:
     I don’t get the question. How does impeachment relate to this debate? Is the assumption that Bush’s policies are blocking victory?
     This is comical. Imagine that — people somehow think that the reason for ongoing failure in Iraq might have something to do with Bush’s policies and ability to lead!!
     After all, he is responsible for 100% of the policies, which to date have gone very poorly (at least von seems to acknowledge that), and is also responsible for refusing to make changes or replace underlings also bearing responsibility for failure.
     But he gave a speech, full of happy talk rhetoric, so all must be cured!!

132. By the way, although I respect the decision to ban wcw (if it’s been made), I have never voted in favor of banning a commentator and I do not vote in favor of banning wcw now.

133. “I recommend to you Melvin Laird’s “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam” in the last issue of Foreign Affairs.”
     Well, yes, because Mel Laird has no reason to be biased, and should be taken as a reliablely objective source for such claims. But why not go even better, and quote Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger? That should prove that they were right all along, right? (Are you familiar with where the term “decent interval” came from?)
     The difference between accepting Laird’s claims and, say, General Giap’s, as similarly disinterested, is? (Unfortunately, claims that the U.S. government and its senior officials were more reliablely truthful and objective in public statements about the Vietnam war than NV statements were would be… difficult to support.)
     Von, how many hundreds of books on the Vietnam War have you read? There’s plenty that’s debatable about the war, but try quoting a source with a molecule’s worth of credibility if you want to so debate, I suggest (and then we could discuss what various others, and their schools of thought, think and argue, and we can try to distinguish wishful speculation [from any POV] from what’s provable.
     “How does impeachment relate to this debate? Is the assumption that Bush’s policies are blocking victory?”
     Precisely, of course.
     Phil says: “Yep. A certain kind of person.”
     And what kind of person prefers tu quoque to debating the issues? What’s important? What to do or not do about Iraq, or impugning Von, or anyone else’s, character?
     All these endless “your side consists of nothing but moral failures and liars!” sort of claims reflect less well on those who make them then on who they make them about. (Blogbudsman: hint: you’re declaiming human tendencies, and that you don’t see that what you somewhat accurately decry as done by some on the “left” is also done plentifully by some one the “right,” means that you are being part-blind yourself. A one-eyed person lacks depth perception, as it happens.)
     “In 1944, the Canadian division did quite well.”
     Well, sure, the Canadians were brave and excellent soldiers. Dieppe was a complete SNAFU.

134. Gary – see here or here, premptively.
     Apropos of nothing: Anarch, have you ever hear of math metal?

135. This is comical. Imagine that — people somehow think that the reason for ongoing failure in Iraq might have something to do with Bush’s policies and ability to lead!!
     nonsense. the only mistake Bush ever made was trusting that dastardly CIA who underestimated the threat Saddam posed, thus forcing BushCo to set up its own intel group, while simultaneously overestimating the threat Saddam posed! but even that mistake was the right decision, because Bush is not wrong, only his critics are wrong. And what Bush does is good for America (if you disagree, see the previous point).
     Le Etat c’est Bush.

136. have you ever hear of math metal?
     don’t know if Anarch has, but i’m a big fan of it: Polvo, Slint, Shellac, Big Black, Gastr Del Sol, etc..

137. So how will the happy talk war supporters spin this one? — the election has been won by the Islamists:
     A coalition of Shiite Muslim political parties with ties to Iran won a commanding number of seats in Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections, according to preliminary results released today and unofficial numbers gleaned from around the country.
     …
     Two other coalitions, one made up of Sunni Arab political groups and the other an alliance of major Kurdish parties, appear to have dominated the rest of the votes, based on preliminary results from the capital and provinces in the Shiite south and Kurdish north.
     …
     But the results tallied so far indicate a further entrenchment of the country’s ethnic and sectarian divides, with Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis each voting for sectarian coalitions and Kurds supporting Kurdish slates.
     The Sunni religious party performed best amongst the Sunni parties, and announced a willingness to ally with the Shiite religious parties.
     The election just continues the ongoing war, and the ongoing rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.
     VICTORY!! Right von?

138. “Perhaps you subsequently withdraw or defend your actual claim; it’s a long thread, and I’m skimming a bit (and not wanting to spend all afternoon at this).”
     Finished. No withdrawal or modification yet of the claim that “Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose” or that “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq.”
     There seemed to be some implied acknowledgment that those claims simply aren’t supportable in your modification to “losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US,” which any turnip should find an agreeable proposition.
     And, of course Von may have modified/withdraw the previous (many times repeated by him over months) over-stretched claim by the time I’ve finished this post; he’s a smart fella.
     I’m wondering if you may not have realized, Von, at least when you wrote this post, or any of the previous times you’ve gone down the “there is no alternative but victory” road, what’s problematic about the claim?
     The problem is that, unlike the utterly anodyne “losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US” claim (to which: duh), your claim says that “and therefore any level of effort me must make, any amount of loss we must endure, any amount of treasure we must pay, any act at all that we take, is not only justified, but mandatory in our quest for “victory.”
     And that’s insanely untrue. We would not, in fact, be justified in sending off 100 million Americans to die, for instance. We would not, in fact, be justified — as in, “this would work out better for the U.S.” — in utterly bankrupting the country. We would not, in fact, be justified if “victory” could only be won by turning half of Iraq into irradiated glass.
     But that’s what all these kooky, pseudo-MacArthur, claims of “we have no choice but victory” and “we cannot afford to lose!” clearly claim.
     Whereas if we’re simply all agreeing that we would all very much like to see a peaceful, democratic (even if you were never a democrat), Iraq, and that anything less would be “bad” for the U.S., we can then debate reality, and how much it makes sense to afford to trade-off for what is practically acheivable as well as desirable.
     Getting carried away into channeling one’s Inner Patton (to use another choice), though, is quite unhelpful to useful debate. It’s no different, rhetorically or in terms of depths of thought, than “No blood for oil!” Sorry. (When people feel their Inner Michael Moore, or Cindy Sheehan, or Patton, or Michelle Malkin, coming on, it would be lovely if they’d pause to think, and purge, before posting, but that’s just my own view, of course.)

139. I’ve been checking write-ups on early returns and I didn’t get the impression that it was completely a victory for the Islamists. Won’t they have to form a coaltion with some other group to get the two thirds needed to form a government? They won’t be able to have things all their own way. Unfortunately it does look like the Sunnis won’t have much of a role. Juan Cole thinks the ruling coalition will appoint Sunnis to promenent positions even if their parties didn’t gain many seats.

140. cleek, how’s The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza?

141. Here, by the way, is a clue as to what Nixon, Kissinger, and co., actually were thinking about “winning the war.” (These are very short Flash audio&text.)
     “But that would be six months too early” says Kissinger in the second quote. What do you make of that?
     I recommend continuing to click on the “continue with” link at the bottom of each base page.
     It’s generally better to be familiar with primary sources (though insufficient) than with ass-covering claims, frankly.
     If you like, we can discuss each taped&transcribed quote. There’s plenty more where those came from. But please do check these out, if you would be so kind.

142. Apropos of nothing: Anarch, have you ever hear of math metal?
     I’d heard of Don Cab, but didn’t realize it was part of a larger scene. Thanks!

143. Von, in your second update you say that we ought to rally for the sake of the mission. But I can’t, not if I think the mission requires leaders responding to the practical realities and developing sound plans that will be responsibly implemented. Nor do I seem to have any leverage to encourage cluefulness or responsibility in the people actually leading. If I support them, they say “see, we were right all along”. If I challenge them on any point, they say, “you’re an enemy of liberty and America”. In neither case do they ever do (say) the sort of reconsideration the Allied high command did after Dieppe and before Normandy, to point at the example I’ve pointed at before.
     So, um. What do you suggest someone do who would like to see a free and stable Iraq but who doesn’t think the administration can be trusted to do it well on any front? How does one meaningfully express support for Iraq’s better future and attempt to change any aspect of the policy by which our country is trying to get there? Examples of this working in practice would be particularly welcome – I really don’t like feeling futile.

144. RE – Math Rock:
     It’s all about the late, lamented Don Caballero. Damon Che isn’t just a drummer; he’s a blistering, drunken octopus (minus 6 arms.)

145. The Poor Man weighs in. I particularly like the following metaphor (read the whole thing for the punchline):

     It’s worth noting that the pressure is now on the Republicans to remove the President’s cock from their mouths, and try to determine, as best they can, whose name is in the top box of the US government’s organizational chart.

146. Ok, I see Anarch already repped Don Cab…
     Pele is another favourite mid-nineties math group that deserves mention. For a less ‘indie’, more ‘balls-out’ take on math-rock/metal, check out Quebecois noise-extremists Cryptopsy.
     Someone should start an ‘obscure musical sub-genre’ open-thread…

147. (minus 6 arms.)
     I’ve never seen him play, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that…

148. Anarch: I saw them back in 1999 (here in sh*tty London, ON CA @ the [semi]legendary Call The Office), and they were outstanding.
     Damon Che was sloppy-drunk, chugging Corona’s all night long. I first mistook him for a besotted fan who’d wandered onstage. He’d begun tinkering with his kit, tapping in in various places with a little mallot (inbetween swigs).
     Live, he’s literally a constant blur of movement, the essence of carefully controlled chaos, and the audience was duly captivated throughout the entire performance.
     I spoke with the bassist briefly afterwards. He was quite personable, talking up BC bud and how cool Calgary is (“Holy sh*t – you guys have cowboys!”)
     He also told me about their stint opening for Rage Against The Machine during the Evil Empire tour (short version: MTV fans don’t like instrumentalists.)

149. Still on the “we could have won in Vietnam if only for Congress, here is what Nixon and Kissinger really thought, for those of you who’ve not clicked on the links in the previous link I gave (please still do; read and listen to the rest, or at least read by clicking on the “transcript” link if the Flash is too slow for you):

     August 3, 1972
     8:28am – 8:57am
     Location: Oval Office
     President Richard M. Nixon: Let’s be perfectly cold-blooded about it. If you look at it from the standpoint of our game with the Soviets and the Chinese, from the standpoint of running this country, I think we could take, in my view, almost anything, frankly, that we can force on [South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van] Thieu. Almost anything. I just come down to that. You know what I mean? Because I have a feeling we would not be doing, like I feel about the Israeli, I feel that in the long run we’re probably not doing them an in-uh, a disfavor due to the fact that I feel that the North Vietnamese are so badly hurt that the South Vietnamese are probably gonna do fairly well [unclear-overlapping voices]. Also due to the fact-because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway. I’m just being perfectly candid-I-
     Henry A. Kissinger: In the pull-out area-
     President Nixon:[Unclear—overlapping voices] got to [unclear—overlapping voices] that we can get certain guarantees so that they aren’t, uh, as you know, looking at the foreign policy process, though, I mean, you’ve got to be-we also have to realize, Henry, that winning an election is terribly important. It’s terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam. That’s the real question.
     Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it’s the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three – to four – month period, we have pushed President Thieu over the brink-we ourselves-I think, there is going to be-even the Chinese won’t like that. I mean, they’ll pay verbal-verbally, they’ll like it-
     President Nixon: But it’ll worry them.
     Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago.
     President Nixon: I know.
     Kissinger: So we’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which-after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January ’74 no one will give a damn.

     But, really, we could have won!
     Nixon explained his “blame Congress” strategy here.

150. Gold from The Editors. Though I do not share the implied hostility towards von, the point is well made with TPM’s humor.

151. “as well as a pop-offs about my purported pro-torture propensities”
     if you really are against state-sanctioned torture, then surely the only “speech that [you’ve] been awaiting” is where bush says:
     “i accept full responsibility for the gross abuses that i authorised or did not take steps to prevent. as a great man once said, the buck stops here. what is important is that we now attempt to repair the damage i have done to america’s great ideals.”
     of course, the speech that i’ve been awaiting continues from the above with the following:
     “in all the decisions i have made in my public life, i have always tried to do what was best for the nation. therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.”

152. cleek, how’s The Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza?
     i don’t know, but i hope they at live up to their fantastic name!
     i’ve only heard of one band from that entire page. for completeness’ sake i feel like i should learn more about the genre… but i just don’t have the pent-up rage i had as a teenager, so i’m not sure i could really get into Cephalic Carnage or Decapitated (“which is brutal death metal”).
     yipes

153. A hating on von thread is up at HoCB, so feel free to come on over and drop some snark if you like.

154. von, really, Melvin Laird? Sheesh. Anarch already pointed, so I’m just letting off steam.

155. Thanks, LJ. I have arrived!

156. The Editor’s point seems to be that Democrats shouldn’t be asked to get in line behind the mission in Iraq because Republicans control the Presidency and Congress.
     No — his point is that Democrats should not be asked to get in line behind Bush’s baloney about Iraq, nor as minority party, do they have the reponsibility to implement an alternative policy because, guess what, they can’t. It’s all Bush’s game, and the Dems get to trash him for his idiocy in Iraq.
     So start over — it just so happens that being 100% opposed to Bush policy on Iraq happens to be what is best for Iraq policy and the US, unless you think Bush knows what he is doing.
     Sorry you can’t see the difference between what is good for Bush (happy cheerleading talk about VICTORY in Iraq) and what is good for America (realism and coherent discussions of policy and achievable goals).

157. I’m glad Jack and LJ made room for you at HoCB, von. You’re big-time now. I haven’t been posting much lately so I’m glad they found more fuel for the hate!

158. We have to succeed in Iraq. We will not succeed if we preemptively declare defeat and go home.
     You wanted this war, you’ve got it now when will you and sebastian be enlisting?
     I am getting really tired of republicans supporting wars that they are not willing to fight in!

159. Six updates and one hundred and fifty-odd comments into this vonnian meltdown and I still have no idea how von wants us to win this war-that-must-be-won. If I didn’t know better, I’d say von cares more about lashing out at Democrats than he does about Iraq itself.

160. On the net etiquette front–Gary, you quoted wcw using the “f” word, which is presumably a violation of posting rules if the idea is to make the site work-safe. Obviously you weren’t using it yourself, but nonetheless, there it sits.

161. while i disagree with the initial post, i gotta give von props for taking the subsequent abuse in stride, and linking to all those, um, rebuttals.

162. I have arrived!
     It’s funny how there’s never a “Hating On Hilzoy” thread. It could be because she hasn’t been martyred by the cruel, inhuman, leftist commenters at Obsidian Wings, and thus does not need the kindly succor of the blessed internet Avalon that is “Hating on Charles Bird.” Or it could be that people don’t attack her that much because she doesn’t waste her time writing petty demagoguery.

163. Gary Farber – “(Blogbudsman: hint: you’re declaiming human tendencies, and that you don’t see that what you somewhat accurately decry as done by some on the “left” is also done plentifully by some one the “right,” means that you are being part-blind yourself. A one-eyed person lacks depth perception, as it happens.)”
     All humans have tendencies, and all tendencies tend to be declaimed by humans. And what does what someone on the left does as a similarity to someone on the right has anything to do with my eyesight. We have been attacked, repeatedly, and our failure to respond had made those attackers bolder and bolder; up to the point that they attacked us here – in our country. I’m guessing somewhere in there is the foundation of Von’s argument. The fact that the liberal fringe knows that it’s aiding and abetting the enemy by their political posturing has pretty well been established. I have plenty of depth perception, Mr. Farber, and a damn good pompous ass meter. There are those among our enemies that might be perceptive enough to think they don’t have to bring us down with hand to hand combat in Omaha. Just pull the thread enough and we’ll self destruct. It might work.

164. “A hating on von thread is up at HoCB, so feel free to come on over and drop some snark if you like.”
     I don’t want to hate on Von; I like Von. I want him to understand what he seems to be not understanding about what he’s saying. Alternatively, he could explain why what various of us have been saying to him — specifically, what “we can’t afford to fail in Iraq” mandates, and how it is not remotely the same as saying “losing in Iraq will unquestionably be a net bad for the US” is, instead, wrong.
     But I’m hoping he’ll make time sometime soon.
     “Gary, you quoted wcw using the ‘f’ word,”
     Yes, that occurred to me after the fact, but since commenters can’t delete, I’m unaware of anything I can do it about. My apologies for simply quoting and responding without considering that, though.
     “I am getting really tired of republicans supporting wars that they are not willing to fight in!”
     I’m getting really tired of people making juvenile points whose implications they’ve not thought out. That is, unless one believes that the only people in our polity with a right to voice a political opinion about the use of the military are enlistees, or veterans, it’s rather unlikely you belive the general policy this silly point would necessarily imply. (The chief alternative interpretation is that it’s simply a blast of incoherent rage, which people all over the Iraq debate are prone to.)
     Also, people who try to get around a ban are not clearly different from people who, when invited to a party, and who are tossed out for clearly violating stated household rules, try to sneak back in. Aside from also being incredibly juvenile, it’s not a demonstration of being morally right, but quite the contrary. Righteousness=! right.

165. This is uncalled for and counterproductive.
     No, it’s not! I bet that if Shrub & Hillary’s Daughters were in Baghdad dodging suicide bombers, It would concentrate their minds on the issues at hand.
     Considering the enthusiam they have shown for this illegal, immoral, stupid & pointless war Von, Sebastian, CB should be in Baghdad making amends to all the US service men, women and Iraqis for their support of this war.

166. I don’t want to hate on Von; I like Von.
     While Jackmormon was the one who set up the site, and I only came on recently, I’ve always assumed that the preposition ‘on’ was a signal that hate wasn’t the root, but more a certain playfulness. Perhaps some navel gazing introspection about the title when JM gets back is in the cards. At any rate, the purpose is to draw off some of the stronger emotions to help the conversation here.
     I would also add that I don’t think a blog’s title shouldn’t be taken as indicative of any requirements that are deemed necessary to comment. After all, I don’t think anyone here has Obsidian Wings. ;^)

167. “And what does what someone on the left does as a similarity to someone on the right has anything to do with my eyesight.”
     That you’re doing what you’re decrying. You’re being blind to what you’re decrying as bad when done by leftists (and it is bad, when done), if it’s only done by people you agree with.
     “We have been attacked, repeatedly, and our failure to respond had made those attackers bolder and bolder; up to the point that they attacked us here – in our country.”
     I entirely agree with that sentence. Curiously, I’ve been blogging about Islamic terrorism for, hey, four years now.
     “The fact that the liberal fringe knows that it’s aiding and abetting the enemy by their political posturing has pretty well been established.”
     See there’s the thing: those in some sort of lunatic echo-chamber — the same sort of echo-chamber you’d decry if it were on the extreme and simple-minded left, and, say, the claim was that George W. Bush, or Richard Cheney, launched the war because their primary purpose was to “get oil” or “make money for Halliburton and the Caryle Group” — have “established” that.
     But neither lunacy is true. (That is, I certainly don’t believe the above about Bush/Cheney, and if one actually knows any real liberals, one certainly knows that “we” (if they’re coming to get the liberals, I’m definitely one, though not by all measures) don’t, in fact, think anything remotely like that, any more than we’re into obeying our alien Xemu masters. We hate and hated Saddam Hussein. We supported the war in Afghanistan, and our overwhelming complaint is that we’ve done so relatively little there. And we split on the merits of launching a war in Iraq. You’d have to go to the true lunatic fringe of ANSWER (and do they actually have more than a few hundred actual members, period?; I agree that marching in coalition with them is deeply problematic, but that’s a separate issue) to find people who actually support “the Iraqi resistance,” and they’re clearly no more representative than, say, the Aryan Brotherhood are of the Republican Party.
     And if you don’t see that, you’re being blind in one eye.
     And directly maintaining that all of us who point this out to you are, in essence, lying, ar at least delusion, about our own beliefs.)
     But, look, prove me wrong. Quote me a Hilzoy post, a Mark Kleiman post, a Matt Yglesias post, a Kevin Drum post, a me post, say, that you can interpret as supporting the “enemy.” Go for it. Use your words.
     I have plenty of depth perception, Mr. Farber,”
     Not if you’re blind to something done by those you agree with, or by yourself, but not to those you disagree with. Metaphorically speaking, that is.
     “and a damn good pompous ass meter.”
     Thanks for calling me a pompous ass. Most courteous.

168. Shorter Von

     Finally.Now that the president has done the hard part by giving a speech, the onus is on those who were against the war from the very start and those who have no political power to pull the president’s fat out…

169. Since Don Quijote outed himself (to the degree a reasonable person might conclude that) as “Banned Poster,” at HOCB, I’ll bring here what I said there:

     Equivalently: if you really oppose the war, why haven’t you flown to Iraq and started flinging yourself in-between American soldiers and Iraqis?
     It makes exactly as much sense. Either we’re hypocrites for not risking our lives to uphold our opinions about military policy, or we’re not. What the specific policy is is logically irrelevant.
     But, in fact, most people would agree that only allowing enlistees or veterans to have a say on military policy would be a) absolutely undemocratic, unless you want to live in the book of Starship Troopers, and b) insane.

     Beyond this, when thrown out of a party, do you in fact storm back in, and regard that as morally correct behavior?
     (On the other hand, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the apparently sloppy way banning here is done, and with the lack of any posted clarity in the rules even to some basic points as to how long a banning lasts: a lifetime? A day? A week? Whim of a blog-owner? It seems to me unjust to not have a clear, and clearly enforced, policy, on what banning consists of, but, of course, mine is just the opinion of a commenter, and worth every penny you paid for it.)

170. We have been attacked, repeatedly, and our failure to respond had made those attackers bolder and bolder
     One hears this alot, but I’m not sure it’s true. It’s certainly not been true in Iraq over the last 30 months. At least the opposition doesn’t seem to be demoralized by our responding. Rather, they seem to be energized by overreaction.
     Think for a minute that what the AQ types want is a war that plays to their megalomaniac delusions. What if they weren’t made bold by our prior lack of response, but were made desperate.

171. Well, like von, I also was awaiting President Bush’s Big Speech about Iraq, although, unlike him (von, that is, not Dubya) – I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. After reading it through, I found very little in it new or interesting: just the usual rote recitation of platitudes, cliches, slogans and partisan digs larded with the usual yammer about “winning” – and featuring the (sadly) usual lack of articulation about how that was to be accomplished.
     However, I am somewhat puzzed by von’s signoff lines:
     “We have to succeed in Iraq. We will not succeed if we preemptively declare defeat and go home.”
     Fine: 100% agreement: but what, then, is the problem with declaring victory and going home? I realize that neither President Bush, von, or anybody else, has so far ever given the country a real metric for what “victory” in Iraq should look like (pace the Utopian fantasies of the neocons, and/or blogger suggestions), so it should be a fairly easy job to convince Americans that we have indeed, “won” in Iraq – after all, without a real definition, who’s to say we haven’t?

172. “We have been attacked, repeatedly, and our failure to respond had made those attackers bolder and bolder; up to the point that they attacked us here – in our country.”
     I was going to post a similar response that Charley Carp did above.
     What is a winning response to these AQ peeps? They are looking at the big game, 5,10,20 years down the line. They are fighting a war of ideas, not bombs. We could ignore them entirely and it would neither embolden nor discourage them. By playing their game we give them power, though, and violent responses that harm innocents will backfire on us.
     We need to penetrate these cells, but first we have to have a superior cause that our agents are willing to die for.
     Frankly, I lack the knowledge of the capabilities of our counter-terrorism, but I would note that a most successful response would, in fact, get no press or public announcements at all.

173. Troy wrote:
     Frankly, I lack the knowledge of the capabilities of our counter-terrorism, but I would note that a most successful response would, in fact, get no press or public announcements at all.
     Yes, but that doesn’t win elections nor does it get a bloodthirsty rise out of right-wing lynch mobs.
     Warmongering pays off the right people.

174. And that’s insanely untrue. We would not, in fact, be justified in sending off 100 million Americans to die, for instance. We would not, in fact, be justified — as in, “this would work out better for the U.S.” — in utterly bankrupting the country. We would not, in fact, be justified if “victory” could only be won by turning half of Iraq into irradiated glass.
     Gary Farber responds to my truism with a truism of his own; this must be why I enjoy his comments so much. (DMBeaster makes a similar criticism.)
     Yes, it’s all balancing. Yes, it’s all best of worst cases: you cost benefit your ass, and the you cost benefi it again. Iraq isn’t worth 100 million lives. It’s probably not worth 20,000. That’s the inhuman calculus of realism.
     So: At some point we don’t need to declare defeat; defeat is obvious, for everyone to see. But we are seeing real progress in Iraq. The vote was largely violence free. Iraqis seem cautiously optimistic about their future and, although they want us to go home, most do not want us to go home quite yet. Casualities are tragic, but they are relatively low. The possible payoff is significant — even if Iraq turns out no better than Jordan (a stable, albeit undemocratic, ally).
     And there’s something more: the concept that you follow through on what you start. It’s not just eagle scout crap. It’s the light that will burn across the universe. Finishing what you start (or at least trying to) sends a signal to your allies and enemies. That you will support them. That you will exact a cost (in life and filthy lucre) if they trouble you.
     Be true unbeliever; you need not fail. It’s not time to go home yet.
     p.s. Incidentally, I’m waging a private contest to see how many cliches and obvious literary references I can fit into one blog post.
     p.p.s. Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel von de von von was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.
     p.p.p.s. The next poster who compares Bush to Tom [of “The Great Gatsby”] gets a metophoric kick in the ass from me. If you’re going to cast Bush as a character from the Great Gatsby — my single favorite book — cast him right. Bush is Jay Gatsby.
     I know it pains you. But it shouldn’t. Gatsby is no hero. (Nor is Nick, but that’s a story for another day.)

175. Erm, “metaphoric”. Pay no attention to the lack of a spellchecker.

176. Bush is Jay Gatsby.
     Oooh, you better hope you got that one wrong, von. Remember what Fitzgerald said about there being no second acts in American life? If so, Bush is going to exit stage right as the biggest chump imaginable.

177. By the bye:
     To the Hating on Von crew:*
     I do read the comments. (I always try to: if you’re going to write them, I owe it to you to at least read them.) I’m not addressing the Vietnam debate because I realized that I opined outside my area of expertise and I can neither defend the comment I made, nor agree with confidence in my critics. So, for the record, my “we could win Vietnam” critics win by default: Their opponent is gonna take his ball, go home, and perhaps ruminate a bit more.
     *I’m not set up to post on blogger, and I gotta run.

178. Von,
     All snark aside, I have viewed Rove as Gatsby, and Bush Jr. as both Tom and Daisy.
     “’Civilization’s going to pieces,’ broke out Tom violently. ‘I’ve gotten to be a terrible pessimist about things. Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?’”…”The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be — will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”…”[us whites] who are the dominant race” — Tom
     “I know. I’ve been everywhere and seen everything and done everything…Sophisticated — God, I’m sophisticated!” — Daisy

179. von wrote: not time to go home yet.
     and for all the commenters on this thread, that is our plan for victory.
     and, to be fair, it’s really the only possible plan.
     just hanging around, waiting to see if the forces of cohesion will master the forces of dispersion, is about the extent of our power.
     when we captured Saddam and dissolved the Baath party and the army, we created an enormous power vacuum. it’s not surprising that the hard men of iraq — kurdish separatists, shia islamic militants — rushed to fill that vacuum. had we withdrawn immediately, those forces would have taken over and split iraq.
     they may still do so. sitting here warm and comfy in southern california, i tend to believe that they will.
     but having made such a mess of the place, we have a moral obligation to spend the blood and treasure necessary to give peace a chance.
     but here’s the critical point: it’s NOT OUR victory. victory — measured by an acceptable level of violence — is now solely the province of the iraqis. each of them must decide what path to follow. and at the end, we will have no choice but to respective their collective decision.
     as americans discovered 130 years ago, some issues are worth fighting and dying over. ultimately the iraqis must decide whether any such issues are facing them.

180. I am somewhat sympathetic to von’s thesis, that dissension at home empowers terrorist enemies looking to win victories on our home-front that they cannot win on the field of battle.
     Unfortunately, it is the Right’s longtime fantasy-world Dolchstosslegende BS that pudding-headed left-liberal types lost the war in Vietnam that would be fueling this just as much as any “discouraging words” here at home.
     IMV what lost the Vietnam war more than anything was that the NVA were, thanks to very difficult sparsely-inhabited mountainous border country, jungle cover, interior lines of communication (down the HCMT), border sanctuaries, ample supplies from our Cold War enemies and the homefield advantage) going toe-to-toe with us for 4+ years, their draftees killing/maiming our draftees at a sufficient rate to eventually force us to cut our losses and bug out.
     (An interesting statistic that I myself dug out earlier this year that approx. 80% of the KIA basic riflemen (11B-10s) in the pivotal year of 1968 had been drafted.)
     von’s apparently unsupportable assertions:
     1) Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose
     (yeah, well Vietnam was also, and we sent 500,000 troops there and flushed away $600B of today’s money, money we still owe)
     2) yet, certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived)
     (What a dopey libel!)

181. >i<close your tags, folks

182. I’m going to take Mr. Quijote’s implicit complaint that it was unfair of me to reply to his comments here, and his request that I post his followup response, as a suggestion that he will resume respecting the rules here. So I’ll this one time post his response, and then keep the blogs separate, since it wasn’t my intention to enable someone by proxy to get around the ban.
     He wrote:

     Garry,
     it’s not the same thing. I know it and you know it.
     There is a small & subtle difference between advocating for a war in which you will not be called to fight and in which you will not volunteer to fight and being against the war.
     While not being a fan of Heinlein, I would be entitled to vote in his starship trooper world, would you?

     My further response is here. The only part I’ll quote here is ObWi-specific:

     (As I indicated, I think the banning rules should be much clearer; if anyone asked my opinion, I’d suggest starting with a short-period ban, maybe three days, and then make bans longer if the offense was repeated, but my opinion doesn’t particularly count.)

183. “One hears this alot, but I’m not sure it’s true.”
     Bin Laden was quite explicit in a number of his manifestos; I don’t know if you’ve read them; would you like some quotes? (And I don’t want to bang on about “alot”; it might be a typo, like the many I constantly make here and in other comments, due to speed; I just hate to see any reinforcement for the notion that that’s a word.)
     “I’m not addressing the Vietnam debate because I realized that I opined outside my area of expertise and I can neither defend the comment I made, nor agree with confidence in my critics.”
     Fair enough, Von, though I’d be quite curious to know simply what you made of the quotes I linked to.

184. “Think for a minute that what the AQ types want is a war that plays to their megalomaniac delusions. What if they weren’t made bold by our prior lack of response, but were made desperate.”
     Setting aside that all their public statements contradict this, hypothetically, were this true, what reason would one have to assume they would not continue becoming more “desperate,” and increasing the scale of their attacks?
     (And by “they,” I mean the folks who want to establish the Caliphate, kill the pig-dog Jews, and attack America because of America’s evil acts; I don’t mean people in Iraq mostly concerned with getting Americans out of their hair, or otherwise concerned largely with solely local concerns, beyond some rhetorical support for the other issues)
     Their entire point of view, after all, is that the existence of Israel, and America’s lack of overthrowing the brutal Arab regimes (they have a bit of a point there) in favor of Islamic regimes (as in Talibanic), is the grievance behind the first attack on the WTC (which I’m sure made far more of an impact on those of us who lived in NYC than to those who did not), the attacks in Africa, the Med, and so on, all long before Iraq; even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and the Bush/Cheney-line on that particular point is reality-based.
     But it’s all there in bin Laden’s texts; have you read them? (I have a helpful three links in the upper left sidebar of my blog, and have since I started posting, although I had to recently update them when they broke. Gee, fourth anniversary in two weeks.)

185. Fair enough, Von, though I’d be quite curious to know simply what you made of the quotes I linked to.
     First reaction: At some level, what Nixon and Kissenger believed was immaterial. The issue is whether South Vietnam would have survived if it continued to receive US aid. So I thought your quotes interesting, but not dispositive.
     Incidentally, and again, I think banning commentators is a mistake. One sets a tone by one’s own behaviour; I have faith that a reasoned response (whether from me, Hilzoy, Ed, Charles, Sebastian, Slarti, or one of our regulars) can rally the commenteriat to oppose the bad actor.

186. GF, I get what you’re saying. I just don’t take the word of UBL for any of it.
     I don’t mean to suggest that we can or should simply ignore AQ. I do think, though, that Global War is the wrong way to deal with megalomaniacs.
     I also think that if we’re going to look at any of our actions to decide whether we’re culpable, in some way, we needn’t start with our response, or lack thereof, to provocations in the 90s. I think we can look more directly at our policies in the region, especially wrt Israel. I’m not suggesting a change in policy. I am uggesting that no amount of striking back in the 90s would have made any difference to the attitude of the enemy, so long as we behaved in the same manner wrt Palestine/Israel.
     Not Striking Back = Molehill
     Supporting Israel, Egypt, SA, KW = Mountain

187. “Yes, it’s all balancing. Yes, it’s all best of worst cases: you cost benefit your ass, and the you cost benefi it again. Iraq isn’t worth 100 million lives. It’s probably not worth 20,000. That’s the inhuman calculus of realism.”
     I won’t hold on until you agree that therefore, in fact, there are plenty of (bad) alternatives to “victory,” and that victory in Iraq, however we define it, is existentially necessary to the survival of the U.S., and that, in fact, we can “afford to fail in Iraq” if the cost is otherwise too high, since you say as much, without going so far as to utter painful words such as “okay, I over-stated there,” or “I was wrong when I over-stated.” People have a resistance to that, until they’ve discovered their true Buddha nature.
     I have no disagreement with the rest of your comment, now that we’re back to possibly arguing merely what the least-worst trade-offs might be.
     As it happens, I haven’t lost all hope for Iraq eventually pulling itself together.
     I do, by this point, very much question any assumption that that result, name the year, would automatically retrospectively morally justify the loss of life and the semi-destruction of Iraq, just as I question, no, outright disagree with, any assumption that there was no moral cost to not acting in Iraq (not that that was an option; doing nothing is doing something).
     But I don’t want to go into a long thesis about what, in retrospect, I now think we should have done instead.
     Short version: held off invading while continuing to maintain the threat, strained as that would have been, so as to keep the inspectors in and SH boxed, at least until the next fall, and then taken policy from there as developments warranted/suggested, absent delusional quests to torture “evidence” of WMD into saying what it didn’t.
     Maybe we could have gotten France and Germany on board six months or a year or two later; maybe not. I’d prefer to roll the dice, in retrospect, in that direction, rather towards immediate war.
     But it’s always easy in hindsight than in reality, and that’s not what I though then.
     I continue to maintain that the invasion was something reasonable people could always disagree about with good cause and fact on their side, and that there was no morally pure choice on the menu. (This remains possibly a more unpopular opinion than declaring either that the war was morally mandatorily, immediately, that month, or that war can never, ever, be possibly justified.)

188. GF, what wouldn’t happened in those six months is that Iraq’s WMD would have been revealed to be a hoax designed to fool enemies (foreign and domestic) and maybe Saddam himself. I don’t know whether Saddam couldn’t survived the humiliation — probably — but the Ba’ath surely would have. It’s hard to see how the sanctions regime would’ve survived, and maybe even the no-fly zones would’ve been cancelled.

189. The issue is whether South Vietnam would have survived if it continued to receive US aid.
     The half-assed way we skedaddled out of their country 1971-1973, probably not, though cutting off the Thieu regime the way Congress did was undeniably a contributing factor to their folding 1974-75.
     One point that is not mentioned wrt the hypothetical re-introduction of American airpower into the theatre is that any shot-down US aircrew captured by the NVA (and fighting in breach of the 1972 accords) would likely still be in NV prisons to this day.
     ARVN’s strategic campaign into Laos in 1971 was a do-or-die test of “Vietnamization”, and ARVN did not pass that test.
     The situation on the ground in 1973-1974 was somewhat odd; VC had been largely wiped out in the delta and elsewhere, “Land to the Tiller” reforms of the late 1960s had blunted a large part of the revolutionary attraction, but the “in-place” peace terms (more of a cease-fire really) left PAVN in a very strong strategic position, in possession of every major border battlefield (Khe Sanh, A Shau, the Ia Drang, etc) and interior sanctuary that we had attempted to clean them out of 1965-1971.
     PAVN had the initiative, supply, logistics, and men to effect real decisions on the battlefield once US military power was removed from the theatre.
     With perfect US support, ARVN could perhaps hold on, but it was a matter of time, since even with perfect logistics it is impossible for a static defense to be strong everywhere against an equal-strength opponent with the liberty to attack anywhere.
     ARVN could hold the Saigon Capital Area, the Central Highlands, or the Hue/Danang panhandle, but lacked the manpower, equipment, training, and leadership to hold all three simultaneously. PAVN’s 1972 Easter Offensive targetted the latter 2, and PAVN had two years to rebuild to try the main force offensive again, this time, thanks to Watergate and Congressional de-authorization, free of USAF intervention.

190. (This remains possibly a more unpopular opinion than declaring either that the war was morally mandatorily, immediately, that month, or that war can never, ever, be possibly justified.)
     
     France tried to dissuade CIA from WMD claims, officials say

     PARIS – More than a year before President Bush declared in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear-weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.
     The previously undisclosed exchanges between the United States and the French, described by the retired chief of the French counter-intelligence service and a former CIA official during interviews last week, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.

     There was never any reason to go to war!

191. I have faith that a reasoned response (whether from me, Hilzoy, Ed, Charles, Sebastian, Slarti, or one of our regulars) can rally the commenteriat to oppose the bad actor.
     Oh, so you want us to gang up on them, eh? ;^)
     But seriously, I am deeply appreciative to Slarti when he weighs in to rein in the more, well, provocative conservatives of late. I can’t speak for others, but I know I would probably ignore them if I knew that they would be addressed. I know that one can’t be expected to live in the comment section, but just a quick one liner asking to take it down a notch would make a world of difference.
     To the Hating on Von crew:
     I do read the comments. (I always try to: if you’re going to write them, I owe it to you to at least read them.)
     I apologize if that observation was completely off base (and it should be attributed to me rather than ‘the crew’, the notion that jackmormon and I are ‘crew’ should give rise to the obvious question of why she is slumming), I just thought that the reference to Laird’s column after having it discussed was a bit odd, but the discussion may not have made an impression.

192. It’s probably not worth 20,000. That’s the inhuman calculus of realism.”
     yet we had lost 42,379 prior to the pivotal A Shau campaign (of “Hamburger Hill” infamy) in May-June 1969 that turned the media/country against the war, and the left gets the Dolchstoss appellaton for finally extracting US forces for SVN.
     ” a fight that we cannot afford to lose” is worth less than 20,000 KIA according to von. I note that 20,000 is a conveniently distant number. Going in, most people would probably have said 2,000.
     Funny how picking up the rifle is easy, but putting it down is damn difficult.
     Maybe we could have gotten France and Germany on board six months
     To me, it looked like we failed to grease the correct palms in this. We were going after The Perfect Play, literally a “hostile takeover” of a country with a virgin commercial sector and a seemingly welcoming, enthusiastic majority eager to throw flowers and sweetheart commercial agreements at us.
     France, Germany, and the Russians had major, major loan guarantees and oil agreements dating back prior the Kuwait kerfluffle. The Bushites really didn’t see the upside of cutting them in on the move into Baghdad. The Heritage Foundation carpetbaggers would serve as reconstruction troops, strengthening the Republican machine with occupation monies, both from the US taxpayer and the New Iraq Neo-Economy Miracle.
     Then the Sadrists and dead-enders started chipping away, like little weasels, at the edifice of Easy Success.

193. It’s hard to see how the sanctions regime would’ve survived, and maybe even the no-fly zones would’ve been cancelled.
     These were on the chopping block regardless. The decision facing the US & UK in 2001-2002 was pooping of getting off the pot. We chose the former.

194. PAVN had two years to rebuild to try the main force offensive again, this time, thanks to Watergate and Congressional de-authorization, free of USAF intervention.
     Interesting parallel is that the news of the domestic spying completely pushed the Iraq elections off the page. Sorry for the OT, but I especially like Kieran Healy’s summary of the options.

195. “Remember what Fitzgerald said about there being no second acts in American life?”
     Which may be the dumbest thing Fitzgerald said in his sad, drunken, life, but since I didn’t follow him around to check many other assertions, I couldn’t say. It’s certainly blatantly, staggeringly, untrue. I’d fetch Richard Nixon to explain, but meanwhile Martha Stewart will have to do.
     “At some level, what Nixon and Kissenger believed was immaterial. The issue is whether South Vietnam would have survived if it continued to receive US aid. So I thought your quotes interesting, but not dispositive.”
     Thanks. No, their opinions are only their opinions, but their opinion was, in essence, that there was almost no likelihood that South Vietnam could exist as a survivable state, under any circumstances the U.S. could effect. And if that’s what they believed — and they irrefutably did, regadless of what Kissinger will claim today (hint: these guys are all irrefutably, unbelievably documented, liars, and I’m not talking about normal lies of state and diplomacy or politcs) — how can one plausibly agree with those who know far less than they knew?
     There’s endless amounts to elaborate on here, which is why it’s so difficult to discuss Vietnam — it’s difficult to ever do so cogently without at least 50,000 words or so to start — but in essence, Johnson concluded that the U.S. had to pull-out, because the effort to “win” wasn’t possible, given the constraints of a) the U.S. population only being willing to spend so many tens of thousands of American lives for a wildly corrupt and undemocratic regime that showed little sign of ever improving over the course of nearly forty years (1956-on, and there were reasons why the South Vietnamese regime was unlikely to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of its own population in under another few decades, decades of peace, which they weren’t going to conceivably get; and b) that we were militarily limited to not going beyond a point wherein either Russia or China would proceed to a very inconvenient war with us.
     So Johnson realized that “negotiation” was the only possible way to withdraw. And so did Nixon. And that was both their public policies; this was not a secret.
     The only remaining out was the figleaf of the decent interval. It was all incredibly frigging tragic, more for the poor Vietnamese people, by far, than anyone else, and it was a terrible moral failure by the U.S. (Which, however, was nonetheless quite happily survivable by the U.S.; the claims that losing in Vietnam would lead rapidly to our general loss to communism were as overblown and wrong as contemporary claims that we have no alternative to victory in Iraq.)
     Nixon did have some faint hope that South Vietnam might be able to survive, and I suppose there might be 5% or so odds that it was conceivable (pulling the estimate/number out of my rear, of course), but only if you squint the same sort of way one has to to be confident that there were major links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; that, too, is not impossible, but the odds are also very low.
     People who claim that we could have won in Vietnam if only it weren’t for Congress tend to, mostly, not be terribly familiar with the actual facts and details, and have been convinced because it certainly is, in many ways, something that it’s preferable to believe. The notion that we stupidly got into a war we had utterly no understanding of, that it went on to be the longest war in Amerian history, and that almost no good came of it, but instad the killing of another million or so people, is horrible to conemplate, but so is lots of life and history. (Then there’s the minority of those who believe we could have won, who have a lot of facts that they grasp, and some arguments that tend, unfortunately, to include a lot of wishful thinking, less than convincing arguments stronger than it’s possible; but what to make of those who are believers in an alleged Nixonian policy that, in point of demonstrable fact, he himself did not believe in (unless he was drinking)? What to make of those more Nixonian than Nixon? Is it likely that they were right?
     I’ll leave it to examination of the comparative arguments, and the facts, for anyone to judge. Myself, I think the most plausible case the diehards can argue is that maybe if Thieu wasn’t Thieu, and the regime wasn’t the regime, it would have been viable.
     But it was what it was. And we were never able to do much about that, and damn sure not for lack of trying. Endless trying, and dying.
     Why, I have to add, would the North Vietnamese ever have given up, given their quite genuine, if also ruthless, nationalism, and their shield of protection, from the Chinese and Russians, from us, say, invading Hanoi? Where’s the argument that they would have eventually just gotten tired and, I dunno, moved to Hawaii, or something? I don’t even know what that argument is, beyond “we will prevail” and “surrender is not an option,” on “our” part, and I do, as I’ve claimed, know something about the topic and the arguments, although as an auto-didact.
     Contrary to Captain Kirk, the universe does often provide us with a no-win situation. Life often sucks.

196. “Posted by: Banned Poster ”
     Whatever. I am not impressed by your playing on my courtesy, and then turning around and posting here anyway. So much for your being “truly grateful.” Fool me once.

197. For the kids (because they are our future):
     Iran gaining influence, power in Iraq through militia
     By Tom Lasseter
     Knight Ridder Newspapers
     BAGHDAD, Iraq – The Iranian-backed militia the Badr Organization has taken over many of the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s intelligence activities and infiltrated its elite commando units, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.
     That’s enabled the Shiite Muslim militia to use Interior Ministry vehicles and equipment – much of it bought with American money – to carry out revenge attacks against the minority Sunni Muslims, who persecuted the Shiites under Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, current and former Ministry of Interior employees told Knight Ridder.
     The officials, some of whom agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of violent reprisals, said the Interior Ministry had become what amounted to an Iranian fifth column inside the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, running death squads and operating a network of secret prisons.
     More:
     http://tinyurl.com/dmkcq

198. One quick question – I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned on this comment thread, but certainly has been on TPM:
     certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived).
     Name them. State what they are doing. Without this, the whole argument is moot. And I still haven’t seen an example of this myself; funny, since I would have thought a Democrat actually cheering losses in Iraq would be quite a newsworthy event. I can hardly think that Limbaugh, O’Reilly et al would have chosen not to mention it.

199. “I do think, though, that Global War is the wrong way to deal with megalomaniacs.”
     This about that.
     I pretty much agree with almost everything Troy has said in Troy’s last few posts, by the way.
     “Iran gaining influence, power in Iraq through militia”
     That’s only news, though, to an ostritch. In other news, Sunnis surly, Kurds desire independence. Film at 11.

200. Which may be the dumbest thing Fitzgerald said in his sad, drunken, life, but since I didn’t follow him around to check many other assertions, I couldn’t say. It’s certainly blatantly, staggeringly, untrue. I’d fetch Richard Nixon to explain, but meanwhile Martha Stewart will have to do.
     I’m not sure about why this seems to have hit a nerve, but I would suggest that rather than a ironclad truth, the assertion in question is more along the lines of an aphorism. It is a little harsh as well to have expected Fitzgerald to predict the future, since Nixon was 23 when Fitzgerald died, and Martha hadn’t even been born. At any rate, the jury may still be out on Martha’s utility as a counter example, and since Nixon found his second act in foreign policy, methinks that will be a hard path for Dubya to follow. Perhaps he will go the Chuck Colson route.
     Also, I believe (though I’m sure you can correct me) several notable science fiction writers have had problems with substance abuse, so I think you are being a bit harsh on ole F. Scott, unless you are lighting on the fact that he is von’s favorite author. Just as long as you don’t go off on Faulkner. ;^)

201. I have a helpful three links in the upper left sidebar of my blog, and have since I started posting, although I had to recently update them when they broke…
     Do you have a link to the interview bin Laden gave to the Western journalist in about 1995, I think it was, that was IMO the most complete “naturalistic” (very, very guarded use there) exposition of his views? Mine was lost when I swapped computers a while ago and I could never find the right Google magic to bring it back again.

202. “And since Nixon found his second act in foreign policy,”
     And here I’d say that he found his second act with the Checkers speech, his third act with his Gubnatorial run, and his triumphant fourth act by being elected President.
     In each case, Nixon was considered by all to be already have the fork stuck in. We won’t have him to kick around any more, you know? But we did. Again, and again, and again, and then again, with the biggest rise from repeated failures ever. Save maybe for one other case.
     I don’t regard his post-resignation activities as more than a post-script. But this is a matter of perspective, of course.
     It’s interesting that I’d immediately agree that I’d have perfectly reasons for wanting to believe in a general likelihood of “second acts,” but I don’t feel that any nerve has, in fact, been hit. I just don’t think the aphorism remotely describes, of all places, America, where even the most unlikely people constantly have comebacks.
     That other contender for most comebacks ever? What the hell is the story of G. W. Bush, if not a story of 18 comebacks after failure? (And I mean everything he did before being elected Governor.) And he’s hardly unusual in most realms of American life.
     And particularly not in show business. What was, say, You Bet Your Life?? A first act? How does Fitzgerald explain, say, Madonna? And on and on and on.
     I think the notion that there were “no second acts” appealed to Fitzgerald as an obvious excuse for self-pity, but doesn’t relate well to general American reality at all. That’s all.

203. Here is the links to many of bin Laden’s statements/interviews/speeches. (There are surely other collections out there; I haven’t gone searching since finding this one back in the 90s.)
     Whether you might be referring to this 1996 interview, I have no idea.

204. Anarch, I think the two western journalists who have gotten interviews were Fisk and John Miller. Fisk’s site has some stuff, though this bbc piece says he has interviewed him 3 times, and miller’s interview is here. Do those ring any bells?

205. Oh, and: “Also, I believe (though I’m sure you can correct me) several notable science fiction writers have had problems with substance abuse….”
     Plenty. It’s sad each time. (I don’t mean people who are heavy drinkers; I mean people who drink themselves to death, some more slowly than others; the list of writers who are/were simply heavy drinkers/alcohol abusers, is vastly longer.)
     And if Fitzgerald’s life, at least the last years, wasn’t sad, whose was?
     “Just as long as you don’t go off on Faulkner.”
     A bit too windy for my taste, but I don’t recall clearly ever actually finishing a full novel by him, so odds are I haven’t.

206. he found his second act with the Checkers speech
     My feeling, reading about Nixon’s maneuvers in the Checkers speech from Garry Wills Nixon Agonistes, is that the Checkers speech doesn’t reveal a rebirth or a free pass, but a very very sly operator.
     I think the notion that there were “no second acts” appealed to Fitzgerald as an obvious excuse for self-pity, but doesn’t relate well to general American reality at all.
     If that’s the case, I look forward to the candidacies of Gore and Kerry. Though I am thankful that Jimmy Carter got a second act.

207. I thought ‘second acts’ didn’t mean second chances, but second acts out of the classic three-act structure, which is Introduction-Challenge-Resolution. IE, no one gets challenged; people just move from success to success.

208. Most of the substantive issues involved here have already been beaten to death, so I’ll simply address you directly.
     You have a hell of a nerve laying responsibility for a good outcome in Iraq at the feet of the Democrats. This war belongs, lock stock and barrel, for good or ill, to George W Bush, and noone else.
     I give Bush no credit for “taking responsibility” by saying it was his decision to go into Iraq. I will give Bush credit for “taking responsibility” when I hear him give a speech beginning with the words “I was wrong”.
     I can think of no Democratic leader who, publicly or privately, would take pleasure in failure in Iraq. It’s likely, however, that there are several who take some satisfaction in the decline of the President’s political fortunes. I find it hard to blame them. Many have spent the last 3 or more years being called cowards, appeasers, traitors, and supporters of terrorism. They have been subject to insanely defamatory political attacks, on themselves and their families. They have, basically, had their nuts gleefully crushed by the most spiteful political organization in my living memory, which includes the presidencies of both Johnson and Nixon, so that’s saying something. And, all for saying things that, as it turns out, were true. It would take a much, much bigger man than I am to resist the urge to say “I told you so”. And, many if not most of them do resist it.
     You are correct to note that failure in Iraq will be disastrous for the US and for the world in general, and also correct to note that it’s a real possibility. Right you are. Just remember who you have to thank for that state of affairs.
     We will be safer when George Bush and his reckless, irresponsible crew are no longer behind the wheel, and not one moment before.

209. One more question for Von:
     Von, is victory in Iraq worth Bush’s imperial presidency, as a matter of policy and precedent? Must we in fact destroy the republic to save Iraq? And what if we destroy the republic and it turns out we can’t save Iraq?

210. The Iraqis are dying for Bush’s sins.
     He is a depraved man and his supporters are deranged sheep.

211. Hi, I surfed on over from the Editors’ place.
     I think you’ve completely missed his point.
     It doesn’t matter how many “great speeches” Bush gives. He’s incompetent. His incompetence is driving America (and Iraq) straight to hell.
     Maybe he should, y’know, do his job and -i reallize this is hard- not trample all over the constitution.
     i realize that this will be hard and that we are living in different times than have ever existed; everyone knows we have never been at war before. But still, Bush should at least make an attempt.
     Also, you should stop whining about how democrats and liberals should try to reach out to Bush. He has spent the last 5 years trying to drive us away. If he wants to reach out to us, we’re here. But if he does it, he will have to make a real attempt. with policy, not some well written speech by karl rove.

212. “My feeling, reading about Nixon’s maneuvers in the Checkers speech from Garry Wills Nixon Agonistes, is that the Checkers speech doesn’t reveal a rebirth or a free pass, but a very very sly operator.”
     Nixon Agonistes, and Garry Wills, are both wonderful. That was an early-on, my favorite book about Nixon, bar none (haven’t reread it in more than fifteen years, to be sure).
     But we may be using “second act” differently. Nixon was considered to be through when the fund hit the papers. Eisenhower was sure to drop him from the ticket. And that was, in fact, the case. There’s no argument there. He survived only because of the success of that speech, which no one, except maybe Pat, expected. (Even Richard Nixon had no idea if he could pull it off.) If that’s not a “second act,” I don’t know what is. I’m not talking about something spiritual, or inner life, and I don’t know how “free pass” wandered in here.
     Hardly an important topic, of course. But my head and heart bursts with important, depressing, topics, and so I like to squeeze out some light friendly chat where I can.

213. “If that’s the case, I look forward to the candidacies of Gore and Kerry.”
     A limited case for “at the beginning of the 21st century, there may, for some time, be no second successful Presidential campaigns after a first failed campaign,” I wouldn’t argue against. 🙂
     Although I’m still quite fond of Al Gore (I must be that sort of “conservative”; how strange!), and would happily work to elect him, vote for him, and see him in office. And stranger things have happened, not that I’d advise betting the house on his comeback, let alone the House.

214. Anarch & Gary: the interview that came to my mind is the 1997 one by Peter Arnett (then of CNN).

215. He is a depraved man and his supporters are deranged sheep.

     Neodude, normally I just skim over whatever you put in comments as being just as devoid of anything valuable and interesting as the last, but this sort of thing will get you banned if you continue. If you’re confused as to why, please click the link called “posting rules” and read.

216. Actually I was thinking along the lines of Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy and Reid. But if the shoe fits…

217. Yeah, I have spent my imagination…time for a vacation.

218. “I have spent my imagination”
     Someone paid cash for it?!? I thought scientific research budgets were shrinking.

219. I am spent…I ain’t got nuthin’…mind is tired…and the right-wingers are becoming the very thing I thought, only existed in the world of Pacifica Radio stereotypes.

220. Sorry, I missed this thread in all the excitement (family birthday this morning), but I did want to note that I think ajay puts us (or at least me) to shame by suggesting a deeper meaning of second act. Thanks to him for pointing it out.
     I’m also one who think that Gore would be an excellent candidate and would support him strongly, though that might be me thinking of things that might have been.

221. The results of the vote are coming in an it seems clear that the Shiites did win big and that the secular parties lost big. The Shiite coalition might get enough seats to form a government on their own. If not, they won’t need to bargain for very many seats. What do you all think of this?
     I think all the talk of staying the course to victory may become irrelevent since we are going to be more or less at the beck and call of the Shiite coalition. They might tell us to go home. In any case I don’t think we will be fighting for a secular, pro-American democratic government. More like a religious, pro-Iranian, increasingly undemocratic government. Even No End But Victory has a link to an pessimistic article from the Christian Science Monitor.

222. “What do you all think of this?”
     It is entirely the fault of the whiny, defeatist, and traitorous Democrats. Had they not been criticizing the Administration, of course the Iraqis would have turned out in overwhelming numbers for Chalabi and Allawi, and we would again be welcomed with candy and flowers.
     < /Redstate >

223. And there’s something more: the concept that you follow through on what you start. It’s not just eagle scout crap. It’s the light that will burn across the universe. Finishing what you start (or at least trying to) sends a signal to your allies and enemies. That you will support them. That you will exact a cost (in life and filthy lucre) if they trouble you.
     Von; If you really believe that, why are you not more concerned about Afghanistan?

224. von writes: ” You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won’t matter at all.”
     Bunk.
     Von, the GOP simply isn’t acting like it. The hawks simply aren’t acting like it. The Pentagon sure as hell never acted like it.
     Is there a draft? No. Therefore, there is no threat.

225. Is there a draft? No. Therefore, there is no threat.
     The US servicemen in the volunteer armed forces are better educated, more motivated, and more effective than the population as a whole. So they havent had to rely on disaffected malingerers from the general population, is that what you are unhappy about? Or is it that when people say minorities and the poor are overrepresented it is no longer true? John Conyers who wanted to bring back the draft is an anti-war Democrat wants to do so in order to cause resentment against the military. It must bother him that our armed forces are by and large conservative.

226. Von is Charlie Brown. Bush is Lucy. This speech is yet another football.
     What’s to discuss? Schulz already drew it.

Comments are closed.