Iraq: not looking good

[Montgomery Burns]

Poor dumb blind Black Dog. Like a little child, he demands instant gratification and results.

When confronted with numerous reports of terrorists and even Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, he merely puts his simply covers his eyes, plugs his ears and says "I can't hear you and I can't see these reports". All the intelligence sources are wrong, the conservative media is wrong, and even the liberal media is wrong. Only the rankest partisan - like Black Dog - would deny that Iraq was a terrorist haven.

Then he offers us up a cooked CBS poll that sampled 32% more Democrats than Republicans, to prove that Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low. Only in the fantasy world that BD lives in would there be 32% more Democrats than Republicans.

Bush ain't governing by the polls! He ain't like Clinton who allowed whatever way the political wind was blowing--to dictate his policies! That's the mark of a true leader!

And then BD insists that a civil war has broken out in Iraq. Let's take a look at embedded reporter Bill Roggio wrote a couple of days ago:

Looking for Signs of Civil War in Iraq:

The following list contains the main lead indicators a full scale civil War in Iraq is underway:

• The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance no longer seeks to form a unity government and marginalize the Shiite political blocks.

• Sunni political parties withdraw from the political process.

• Kurds make hard push for independence/full autonomy.

• Grand Ayatollah Sistani ceases calls for calm, no longer takes a lead role in brokering peace.

• Muqtada al-Sadr becomes a leading voice in Shiite politics.

• Major political figures - Shiite and Sunni - openly call for retaliation.

• The Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars Association openly call for the formation of Sunni militias.

• Interior Ministry ceases any investigations into torture and death squads, including the case against recently uncovered problems with the Highway Patrol.

• Defense Minister Dulaimi (a Sunni) is asked to step down from his post.

• Iraqi Security Forces begins severing ties with the Coalition, including:

o Disembeddeding the Military Transition Teams.

o Requests U.S. forces to vacate Forward Operating Bases / Battle Positions in Western and Northern Iraq.

o Alienates Coalition at training academies.

• Iraqi Security Forces make no effort to quell violence or provide security in Sunni neighborhoods.

• Iraqi Security Forces actively participate in attacks on Sunnis, with the direction of senior leaders in the ministries of Defense or Interior.

• Shiite militias are fully mobilized, with the assistance of the government, and deployed to strike at Sunni targets. Or, the Shiite militias are fully incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces without certification from Coalition trainers.

• Sunni military officers are dismissed en masse from the Iraqi Army.

• Kurdish officers and soldiers leave their posts and return to Kurdistan, and reform into Peshmerga units.

• Attacks against other religious shrines escalate, and none of the parties make any pretense about caring.

• Coalition military forces pull back from forward positions to main regional bases.

Iraq has yet to encounter any of the problems stated above.

As I previously stated, another leftist "civil war" fantasy turns into a wet dream.

[Black Dog]

Poor dumb blind Black Dog. Like a little child, he demands instant gratification and results.

When confronted with numerous reports of terrorists and even Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, he merely puts his simply covers his eyes, plugs his ears and says "I can't hear you and I can't see these reports". All the intelligence sources are wrong, the conservative media is wrong, and even the liberal media is wrong. Only the rankest partisan - like Black Dog - would deny that Iraq was a terrorist haven.

Not only are your arguments stale, even your insults are cribbed (from the same person your trying to insult, no less!) Pathetic.

As for terrorists in Iraq: let's take the example of the number of known terrorists residing in the United States, with the full knowledge of the U.S. government. That fact is not evidence of a working relationship between the government and the terrorists. But that's a side show. Whatever Huessin's ties were to Palestinian groups or any terrorist passing through Baghdad don't really matter. Everyone with a brain knows the association being made was between Hussein and Al Qaeda and the fear the iarq was working with terrorists targetting the United States. And that trail is a dead end. Once again if it wasn't, we'd be hearing about it from the top and not from the lunatic fringe.

Then he offers us up a cooked CBS poll that sampled 32% more Democrats than Republicans, to prove that Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low. Only in the fantasy world that BD lives in would there be 32% more Democrats than Republicans.

However, columnist Kellyanne Conway, writing for the conservative National Review Online, noted that Bush's approval rating would have been only 37 percent even if CBS News weighted the results equally.

And then BD insists that a civil war has broken out in Iraq. Let's take a look at embedded reporter Bill Roggio wrote a couple of days ago:

That's funny. "Iraq is not in a civil war because none of the conditions for civil war I just made up are not being met."

[GostHacked]

I posted this in the other thread about this but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765456.stm

Looks like SOME of those things ARE being met Monty. Now that they have been given a list to accomplish, they got to work on it right away. Thank your reporter for giving us this wonderful list. But as good old Black Dog said, you are still blinded by the shiney new toy. They have been like this for 1200 years, and you think Bush's Buddies can cure it in a few years? Shortsighted indeed.

[Black Dog]

This shows that there's no universal definition of what civil war is (also worth noting is the opinions of those who-as of the piece's writing in September 2005- said Iraq was already in civil war, an opinion echoed by numerous othe prior to this curent round of unrest). Now, given the lack of a universal definition of civil war, just plucking conditions out of thin air and proclaiming them prerequisites for such a designation is a highly subjective excercise. So, by some people's definitions Iraq is in a civil war. By others', it ain't. Either way, there's no way 1,300+ dead combined with a political process on the brink conforms with the rosy picture some would paint.

[Black Dog]

National Review's Derbyshire joins conservative exodus from Iraq

Well, I'm with Bill Buckley and George Will. This pig's ear is never going to be made into a silk purse, not by any methods or expenditures the American people are willing to countenance. The only questions worth asking about Iraq at this point are: How does GWB get out of this with the least damage to US interests, and to his party's future prospects? I wish I had some answers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I am a bit surprised that the Council Of Foreign Relations claims to be non-partisan...for those conspiracy theorists out there, they are the ultra-right's think tank on how to dominate the world. I have heard that they are, along with the IMF and the World bank, another tentacle (albeit a very powerful one) of the beast.

However, I for one do not consider Iraq to be 'in the grips of civil war', simply because of the lack of organization. It lacks the structure needed, (gov't suppression of rebel forces, for eg) and more resembles plain sectarian violence. No one has issued demands of 'ceding power', and that sort of thing.

[Black Dog]

However, I for one do not consider Iraq to be 'in the grips of civil war', simply because of the lack of organization. It lacks the structure needed, (gov't suppression of rebel forces, for eg) and more resembles plain sectarian violence. No one has issued demands of 'ceding power', and that sort of thing.

I thnk that's a narrow definition of civil war. Who says sectarian violence cannot be a component of civil war? Look at Yugoslavia. I don't think structure or even clear sides is a necesaary precondition of civil war. We're looking at a situation where you have various factions using violence to change the political structure of the country by deliberately targetting opposing factions. That seems like a reasonable definition of civil war. As for sectarian violence, who

[JerrySeinfeld]

Civil war?

With security experts reporting that no major road in the country was safe to travel, some Iraq specialists speculated that the Sunni insurgency was effectively encircling the capital and trying to cut it off from the north, south and west, where there are entrenched Sunni communities. East of Baghdad is a mostly unpopulated desert bordering on Iran.

"It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

Get over it. The US isn't pulling out. At least someone has the balls to take on these f*ckers.

Meanwhile press editors in the west make up excuses for not printing cartoons.

When do we officially call ourselves muslim apoligists? Bush will not succomb to intimidation. At least someone has balls.

As europe deteriorates into a Sharia state and Canada, bewildered, wonders where to turn, the US stand hard and fast for justice and liberty of women in the middle east.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Who says sectarian violence cannot be a component of civil war?

A component? Certainly. The impetus for classification on it's own merit? "No" is my contention.

We're looking at a situation where you have various factions using violence to change the political structure of the country

This is what I don't see. I don't see either side issuing ultimatums, concrete or otherwise, as a 'battle cry' for any faction.

"Me first or violence ensues" is certainly a mantra in civil war, but demarcation of wills at this point is still very fuzzy.

I guess small percentages of combatants for a cause represent assassins and/or terrorists, larger percentages represent civil war and 'popular will'.

[Montgomery Burns]

When is this civil war going to start? Next week? Next month? Next year? Next century? The left has been bleating about a civil war for a couple of years already. Yet the Iraqis continue to disappoint the left.

“Senator McCain, are you concerned that if the transfer of power does take place on June 30th that a huge vacuum will be created and it will be an invitation to civil war? Because no matter how deplorable Saddam Hussein was considered, he was the ultimate referee who kept the Sunnis and the Shiites apart from killing each other.” — NBC’s Katie Couric to John McCain on Today, April 5, 2004.

Moderator Bob Schieffer: “So what you’re saying is that we may be looking at something like a Yugoslavia there, which wasn’t really a country, but Tito held it together with the iron fist, and once he went, it really came apart.”

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman: “What we’re gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” — CBS’s Face the Nation, October 3, 2004.

Moderator Tim Russert: “Tipping point, could it tip back into a potential civil war if the Sunnis continue to stay out of the government?”

The ubiquitous Tom Friedman: “Absolutely. Right now in Iraq the big question, Tim, is can the Shiites, who will dominate the next government basically, will they reach out and share power?” — NBC’s Meet the Press, February 27, 2005.

“I’m Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?” — Schieffer beginning the May 19, 2005 CBS Evening News.

“Whenever violence breaks out, many go looking for old enemies to blame. US commanders have privately noted every time a bomb goes off in a Shiite neighborhood, something bad seems to happen in a Sunni area. And that simply adds the specter of civil war to the overall mayhem, which is probably just what the insurgents had in mind.” — CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier on the July 18, 2005 Evening News.

Senator John Thune: “I think we’re making, what I believe is progress in that direction.”

Host George Stephanopoulos: “But you say it’s progress. But there have been an awful lot of signs that it’s not. We know that they presented, for example, the constitution to the assembly but have not called a vote on it. We hear this opposition from the Sunnis, from Muqtada al Sadr. Aren’t you at all concerned that this constitution may in fact be a prelude to civil war? That it may be deepening the divisions?” — ABC’s This Week, August 28, 2005.

It's time for the left to quit wanking about this imaginery civil war and play a different tune in their jukebox.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[GostHacked]

When is this civil war going to start? Next week? Next month? Next year? Next century? The left has been bleating about a civil war for a couple of years already. Yet the Iraqis continue to disappoint the left.

“Senator McCain, are you concerned that if the transfer of power does take place on June 30th that a huge vacuum will be created and it will be an invitation to civil war? Because no matter how deplorable Saddam Hussein was considered, he was the ultimate referee who kept the Sunnis and the Shiites apart from killing each other.” — NBC’s Katie Couric to John McCain on Today, April 5, 2004.

Moderator Bob Schieffer: “So what you’re saying is that we may be looking at something like a Yugoslavia there, which wasn’t really a country, but Tito held it together with the iron fist, and once he went, it really came apart.”

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman: “What we’re gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” — CBS’s Face the Nation, October 3, 2004.

Moderator Tim Russert: “Tipping point, could it tip back into a potential civil war if the Sunnis continue to stay out of the government?”

The ubiquitous Tom Friedman: “Absolutely. Right now in Iraq the big question, Tim, is can the Shiites, who will dominate the next government basically, will they reach out and share power?” — NBC’s Meet the Press, February 27, 2005.

“I’m Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?” — Schieffer beginning the May 19, 2005 CBS Evening News.

“Whenever violence breaks out, many go looking for old enemies to blame. US commanders have privately noted every time a bomb goes off in a Shiite neighborhood, something bad seems to happen in a Sunni area. And that simply adds the specter of civil war to the overall mayhem, which is probably just what the insurgents had in mind.” — CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier on the July 18, 2005 Evening News.

Senator John Thune: “I think we’re making, what I believe is progress in that direction.”

Host George Stephanopoulos: “But you say it’s progress. But there have been an awful lot of signs that it’s not. We know that they presented, for example, the constitution to the assembly but have not called a vote on it. We hear this opposition from the Sunnis, from Muqtada al Sadr. Aren’t you at all concerned that this constitution may in fact be a prelude to civil war? That it may be deepening the divisions?” — ABC’s This Week, August 28, 2005.

It's time for the left to quit wanking about this imaginery civil war and play a different tune in their jukebox.

In each one of those quotes they simpoly are asking a question if there IS a civil war. Most of these quotes to me read as what they speculate. There is nothing there in each of these quotes that says there definatly a civil war.

Quite the missuse of those quotes Montey. They support neither side, but simply ask questions about 'what if'. At least someone is asking the questions instead of just blindly following the 'leader'.

[New Zeal]

Hi guys,

I am interested in the current situation in Iraq and have read this thread.

There are one or two problems with the "right wing" position as elucidated by Monty.

1. No WMD were found to justify the invasion of Iraq

2. The war has dragged on a lot longer than anticipated or promoted by the Bush Admin

3. while $250 billion has been spent on the war, social services within the US have been neglected

4. US citizens are gradually having their rights eroded for the sake of security. It is the same process that preceded the formation of the Nazi Germany

There are similar problems with the "left hand" idea that the US can simply withdraw. The size of the US military installations in Iraq apparently are immense. They appear to counter the notion that the US is in there for the short term.

The only thing that we can be certain about this invasion is that it was a blunder on a $250 billion dollar scale, that Bush will leave office faster than Nixon, go down in history as the worst president ever and spark a major overhaul of the US electoral system. How was it that an administration that sneaked in over a disputed vote count in Florida manage to have unhinged power over the right to violate UN resolutions outlawing the unprovoked attack of another sovereign nation? These are questions that will echo down the chambers of the senate in years to come.

One election does not a democracy make. Monty is still in that religious-opiate fever that grips him with the right to violently impose his "democracy and freedom" onto helpless peoples of another country. While right wingers fall like dominoes around him, he continues to 'fess true courage in his stand against -what's is it you're are standing against, or for?

[Montgomery Burns]

New Zeal:

There are one or two problems with the "right wing" position as elucidated by Monty.

1. No WMD were found to justify the invasion of Iraq

No stockpiles of WMD, but some WMD was found. Besides, that was not the reason for the Iraqi invasion as the Joint Authorization to Use Force clearly stated. Only 2 of the 23 clauses even mentioned WMD. Btw, how did you like the translation of those tapes found in Iraq?

2. The war has dragged on a lot longer than anticipated or promoted by the Bush Admin

When has the Bush administration ever given a timetable? Bush has stated - numerous times - that there is no timetable.

3. while $250 billion has been spent on the war, social services within the US have been neglected

It's costing too much to free Iraqi children!

And what social services have been cut? You make it sound like cutting wasteful social services is a bad thing.

4. US citizens are gradually having their rights eroded for the sake of security. It is the same process that preceded the formation of the Nazi Germany

The obligatory Bush=Hitler reference.

I don't recall Bush calling for the citizenry to be disarmed, unlike former PM Martin. Hitler disarmed the German populace. Martin=Hitler?

There are similar problems with the "left hand" idea that the US can simply withdraw. The size of the US military installations in Iraq apparently are immense. They appear to counter the notion that the US is in there for the short term.

First there is not enough troops, then are too many. Will you guys make up your mind? No wonder you admired John Kerry.

The only thing that we can be certain about this invasion is that it was a blunder on a $250 billion dollar scale, that Bush will leave office faster than Nixon, go down in history as the worst president ever and spark a major overhaul of the US electoral system.

And I can see pigs flying outside my window...

How was it that an administration that sneaked in over a disputed vote count in Florida manage to have unhinged power over the right to violate UN resolutions outlawing the unprovoked attack of another sovereign nation?

Because the founding fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes, and honor so that America's fate would depend on the whims of other countries like France, China, and Russia?

Because Saddam had ignored the ceasefire he had signed back in 1991?

Because America wasted hundreds of billions of dollars having 100,000 troops "contain" Iraq for 12 years?

These are questions that will echo down the chambers of the senate in years to come.

Only in the liberal la-la land part of the Senate...

[margrace]

Hi montgomery, none so blind as he who will not see, what about Bush's much publized end of war gafufal on the Big boat.

[scribblet]

I agree that the war has been a costly mistake, but I also agree with Monty, toomany people ignore the facts about it, and wish to re write history. However, we cannot change the past, so now somehow, the U.S. and maybe with the help of NATO, can help establish peace and avert a civil war.

If we believe that no matter what we do, there will never be peace, that Iraq cannot govern themselves or get along with out a strong arm dictatorship, then the U.S. should leave; but do we believe that, or should we give the Iraqis more credit?

[Black Dog]

Why won't Iraqis listen to Monty?

Sectarian violence continues

Unidentified gunmen attacked at least three mosques in Iraq over the weekend, killing four people and prolonging a nearly two-week spate of sectarian violence that has deepened animosity between the country's Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least the political process is on track, right?

Politicians continued their efforts Sunday to form a national unity government that they hope can help heal the rifts and end an epidemic of attacks that has left more than 1,000 dead since the bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad, on Feb. 22. But a key Shiite religious leader, the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, indicated that he would not abandon his candidate for prime minister, interim Prime Minster Ibrahim al-Jafari, as Sunni Muslim and Kurdish parties are demanding.

I agree that the war has been a costly mistake, but I also agree with Monty, toomany people ignore the facts about it, and wish to re write history. However, we cannot change the past, so now somehow, the U.S. and maybe with the help of NATO, can help establish peace and avert a civil war.

NATO won't touch Iraq with a ten-foot pole. The fact is the U.S. handling of the situation has been so abysmal that they can't even keep members of their own coalition from bailing out, let alone bring anyone else in to help.

we believe that no matter what we do, there will never be peace, that Iraq cannot govern themselves or get along with out a strong arm dictatorship, then the U.S. should leave; but do we believe that, or should we give the Iraqis more credit?

Well, I think if you wanted to give Iarqis some credit, you'd trust them to manage their own afairs without the U.S. (who has proven ineffectual anyway).

[New Zeal]

Monty,

Right now most of the GIs serving in Iraq want out.

They know something that you don't know, Monty, apart from "knowing that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 bombing and that they are there to rout al Qai'da". (more Bush propaganda)

The GIs in Iraq are not flush with the same patriotic fervour which your armchair TV position gives you. They do not share the same confidence about the situation where they are stationed.

The GIs in Iraq are training an army of soldiers consisting of people whose infrastructure the US have randomly bombed, whose family members they have killed, and whose country they have brought to a standstill.

The GIs are scared that the very people they are training will turn around and kill them. They do not know who to consider as friend or foe.

One day the Iraqi soldiers may well turn around and kill the men who have trained them. The US have been there long enough for them to know their weaknesses well. They only have to use the very techniques they are being taught to stage a military takeover.

Unlike the GIs who are fighting 9 to 5 and have their families safely tucked back at home, the Iraqis are fighting for their survival and their land.

[Black Dog]

Dunt dunt dunt: another one bites the dust

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

Oh but Newt Gingrich is only the former Speaker of the House and a potential G.O.P presidential candidate in 2008. A nobody, really; certainly not someone who represents the G.O.P or conservatives.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh but Newt Gingrich is only the former Speaker of the House and a potential G.O.P presidential candidate in 2008. A nobody, really; certainly not someone who represents the G.O.P or conservatives.

For Gingrich, it’s a dramatic reversal

In December 2003 (six months after he claimed the occupation of Iraq became a mistake), Gingrich expressed his support for the continuing operations:

I think it’s easy to go back now and second-guess. But when I look back and I think about what we felt in February and March and April, I think it was the right war, it was the right decision. [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 12/8/03]

In September 2004 (15 months after he says the occupation was a mistake) Gingrich blasted critics who complained “we’re not winning fast enough”:

And instead of applauding this deliberate effort to minimize American casualties and to strengthen the Iraqis, we have some of our friends here at home who want it both ways. They want to complain that we’re not winning fast enough, and they want to complain if we take any casualties. You can’t have it both ways. [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 9/27/04]

Meet the new Newt. Nothing like the old Newt.

UPDATE: Salon’s War Room finds another good Gingrich quote from 1/19/06: “I think it’s quite clear…that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they’re monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.”

Gingrich's Bad Call

First, the obvious. If for three whole years Gingrich thought it a mistake to occupy Iraq, we certainly didn't hear about it. Maybe, over those three years, he considered it bad form to undermine the president. What changed?

[Liam]

No stockpiles of WMD, but some WMD was found.

Where? When? Do you mean this?: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/12/iraq.weapons.ap/index.html

[Black Dog]

Remember Iraq?

Sectarian split looms.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: "The parties have moved to plan B." He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. "There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [shia] east and [sunni] west," he said.

Good to know the same wizards who made Iraq the stable democracy it is today are the same brain trust working to solve the crisis in Lebanon.

[Black Dog]

More troops to Baghdad

The U.S. and Iraq are moving thousands of troops into Baghdad to bolster Iraq's war-weary capital in what the White House suggests is an acknowledgment that the six-week U.S.-Iraqi security offensive is not working.

...

A senior Defense Department official said the remainder of a backup force that had been stationed in Kuwait was also heading into Iraq. Some U.S. military police companies are being shifted to Baghdad, involving between 500-1,000 troops, as well as a cavalry squadron and a battalion of field artillery troops, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans yet to be made public.

And if that don't work?

[Machinations]

Ironically the Israeli action in Lebanon may be the only thing forestalling a civil war.

Notice the Saudis and the other so-called 'moderate' Arab states are having to ratchet up their public rhetoric.

Why? Fear of a popular uprising.

[jdobbin]

Newsweek has some interesting things to say about Iraq. They blame U.S. military tactics for helping to foster the insurgency. They also say Bush doesn't understand his enemies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14046789/site/newsweek/

[jdobbin]

A new report from the New York Times says that the State department in the U.S. is covering up the true costs of Americna involvement in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14102375/