What is demonstrable fact is that U.S. estimates of the number of
insurgents remain constant - or rise - in spite of all military
operations against them. Maintaining a positive outlook like "the
little engine that could" is not a substitute for applying realistic
measures of effectiveness (remember Bush's managerial cult of
"metrics" - e.g. testing in schools?). So, we have applied X
billion dollars and 2k lives (plus some thousands of maimed) and we
have achieved what? Yeah, an interim government and an election -
but no measurable reduction in the level of insurgent activity, which
is the most relevant figure of merit for the military level of
effort. U.S. field commanders are NOT asking for more troops - and
are already speaking publicly of troop reductions in 2006, perhaps
because they doubt any linear relationship between such inputs and
outcomes, but mostly because they understand that the Iraqis - all of
them, not just the insurgents - resent U.S. troop presence and will
tacitly support the insurgency until we are gone. Zarqawi is
currently shifting his fire to Shi'a and Sunni "collaborators"
because he wants a civil war. U.S. forces are trying to balance
support for the Iraqi security forces with the need to not be seen to
do so. Any Iraqi government has to show that there is daylight
between itself and the Americans to have any legitimacy.
Similarly, the Muslim mainstream, to include our client state Saudi
Arabia, encouraged and funded fundamentalist madrassas and al Qaeda
up to and after 9/11. We have correctly but belatedly called them
on this. Look at the widespread opinion in the Muslim world that
9/11 was somehow deserved - or that it was all a Zionist plot, or a
staged event. So, yes, Islam has to make a choice which they have
been shying away from. Where you and I disagree is on whether U.S.
hardware and military support is the right tool for forcing that
choice. If all you've got is a hammer, everything starts to look
like a nail. The administration's disrespect for diplomacy and world
opinion has sapped what was once a U.S. strength. U.S. "moral
support" is no longer a benefit, but rather a detractor. Yes, the
U.S. way of life remains attractive to Iranian young people living
under that theocratic regime, but watch that change if we invade
their country.
Hugh
On 4 Oct 2005, at 17:18, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh Said :
>
> Hugh said:
>
> Reply: This is an unsubstantiated opinion, and has NO BASIS in
> fact. This opinion, which is widely held in liberal circles, is
> based on a defeatist or pessimistic perspective. Conversely, the
> same could be said for the USA,....we have tragically lost 2k
> soldiers, but there are plenty more that rise up to replace them.
> Your assertion implies that fighting insurgents is hopeless, as
> there are an infinite, replenishable number of them, which is
> simply a defeatist opinion, and not a demonstrable fact. And
> conversely, based on the same logic, shouldn't the "insurgents"
> give up, since we (the USA) have replenished our military, and the
> ability to replenish it further, as needed. We are not "tapped
> out" by any means.
>
> Hugh said:
>
> Reply: There is an ongoing fight between Islamic Radicalism and
> the West....I hope you are not suggesting that the "Muslim
> Mainstream" attacked us on 9/11. Surely, this attack was from
> Islamic Radicals. Right? And that this fight continues to be
> fought. Correct?
>
> Now, the Muslim mainstream, especially in Iraq, has to make a
> choice, either to join the modern world and the West, or to stay
> subservient to Dictators and Islamic Radicals who wish to keep them
> in the 15th century, by force, intimidation, and mass murder. And
> while I agree that we are not "directly" involved in this
> ideological battle, we have certainly "chosen sides" with the
> "democratic seeking forces" within Iraq and Afghanistan. And we are
> providing our hardware and military support, as well as our
> political and moral support, to these "west leaning" muslims, and
> thereby are indeed fighting, both directly and indirectly, the
> foreign Islamic Radicals and Saddam's indigenous henchmen. We can
> win, and are winning, this ideological battle, just as you
> mentioned about Iran, because the peoples in Iran and Iraq desire a
> better life and a higher standard of living, which is NOT being
> offered by the Radicals and Dictators.
>
> Let's see how many Iraqi's come out to vote on Oct 15. Hopefully
> more than 8 million will show again. Perhaps up to 10 million.
> And with any luck, they will agree on their constitution. Courage.
>
> Marco
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
any one need me to rip somebody? 
JOKE! , just a joke.More Encouraging News
Let's make this quick:
Al-queda, in their recently captured communique, is basically admitting that they are getting whooped in Iraq, and that they need more men and money ASAP. And they further admit that they have no popular support in Iraq because they keep attacking Moslem civilians......go figure.
The Iraqi elections are to be held this weekend, and there are no (or very few) liberals complaining that we should postpone the elections because they are too dangerous or illegitimate. Some folks are talking about more than 10 million voters voting....we'll see....but even 9 million would be quite impressive.
Sounds like a passing grade on the old Progress Report to me. The sooner we can get the Iraqi gov and military up to snuff, the sooner we can move on.
Marco
PS: Did I mention that Gerhardt Schroeder got canned in Germany for a Pro-USA Lady Chancellor? That leaves only France and the Wafflers.
Al-queda, in their recently captured communique, is basically admitting that they are getting whooped in Iraq, and that they need more men and money ASAP. And they further admit that they have no popular support in Iraq because they keep attacking Moslem civilians......go figure.
The Iraqi elections are to be held this weekend, and there are no (or very few) liberals complaining that we should postpone the elections because they are too dangerous or illegitimate. Some folks are talking about more than 10 million voters voting....we'll see....but even 9 million would be quite impressive.
Sounds like a passing grade on the old Progress Report to me. The sooner we can get the Iraqi gov and military up to snuff, the sooner we can move on.
Marco
PS: Did I mention that Gerhardt Schroeder got canned in Germany for a Pro-USA Lady Chancellor? That leaves only France and the Wafflers.
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Zawahiri (holed up in northwest Pakistan (?) - how come we haven't
had his head on a pike after four years?) asked Zarqawi (in Iraq) for
money. Sounds like the insurgency is doing fine, thanks.
Schroeder lost (sorta - no clear result from the election) because he
can't fix unemployment domestically.
Let's be clear: all Americans have a stake in "success" in Iraq
(I'll settle for "not a total defeat" at this point). That's all
Bush is going to get - a gentleman's C, just like he got at Yale.
His has been a piss-poor performance that may only be retrieved from
abject failure by the sacrifices of our troops and of mainstream
Iraqis - sacrifices which would not have been necessary had Bush and
company not been drinking their own koolaid about how easy this was
going to be a planned realistically for what to do the day after
military victory.
Hugh
had his head on a pike after four years?) asked Zarqawi (in Iraq) for
money. Sounds like the insurgency is doing fine, thanks.
Schroeder lost (sorta - no clear result from the election) because he
can't fix unemployment domestically.
Let's be clear: all Americans have a stake in "success" in Iraq
(I'll settle for "not a total defeat" at this point). That's all
Bush is going to get - a gentleman's C, just like he got at Yale.
His has been a piss-poor performance that may only be retrieved from
abject failure by the sacrifices of our troops and of mainstream
Iraqis - sacrifices which would not have been necessary had Bush and
company not been drinking their own koolaid about how easy this was
going to be a planned realistically for what to do the day after
military victory.
Hugh
V+1 Plan possibilities
Hugh,
You keep saying that if we had "more troops" immediately after capturing Baghdad, that the insurgency would have been "killed in its infancy". You suggest that there would NOT be an insurgency now, if we had killed it off earlier in its infancy. That sounds great...but is it true, or even plausible?
The insurgency requires manpower, resources, and coordination to survive. You assume that having the extra troops would have wiped out the entire insurgency, but you cannot prove this....it is speculation alone, albeit well informed speculation.
Alternatively, it is entirely possible that your plan for V+1 day may have yielded similar or even worse results than what we have now. More troops mean more targets traversing the streets of Iraqi cities and towns. So it is entirely possible that there would continue to be a persisting insurgency, but with INCREASED U.S. casualties (with your V+1 Plan), as compared to what we have now. This scenario, admittedly, is strictly speculation on my part, but your V+1 Plan assertions are likewise only speculation because nobody knows what "REALLY WOULD HAVE HAPPENED" had we done X, Y , or Z differently. It's the old coulda, shoulda, woulda thing.
The only thing for certain is that Saddam would still be running Iraq if we had not removed him. His henchmen are continuing to mame and kill the Iraqi citizenry, just as it did when Saddam was "officially" running the show. Unless and until we can ID, find, and dispose of all of Saddam's thugs and collaborators, there will be some level of insurgency, which the new leaders of Iraq will have to deal with when we have departed.
By comparison, the IRA, with no more than 300 active members at any given time, tied up tens of thousands of British troops for decades, and still didn't get wiped out, and in fact continued to wreak havoc.
Marco
You keep saying that if we had "more troops" immediately after capturing Baghdad, that the insurgency would have been "killed in its infancy". You suggest that there would NOT be an insurgency now, if we had killed it off earlier in its infancy. That sounds great...but is it true, or even plausible?
The insurgency requires manpower, resources, and coordination to survive. You assume that having the extra troops would have wiped out the entire insurgency, but you cannot prove this....it is speculation alone, albeit well informed speculation.
Alternatively, it is entirely possible that your plan for V+1 day may have yielded similar or even worse results than what we have now. More troops mean more targets traversing the streets of Iraqi cities and towns. So it is entirely possible that there would continue to be a persisting insurgency, but with INCREASED U.S. casualties (with your V+1 Plan), as compared to what we have now. This scenario, admittedly, is strictly speculation on my part, but your V+1 Plan assertions are likewise only speculation because nobody knows what "REALLY WOULD HAVE HAPPENED" had we done X, Y , or Z differently. It's the old coulda, shoulda, woulda thing.
The only thing for certain is that Saddam would still be running Iraq if we had not removed him. His henchmen are continuing to mame and kill the Iraqi citizenry, just as it did when Saddam was "officially" running the show. Unless and until we can ID, find, and dispose of all of Saddam's thugs and collaborators, there will be some level of insurgency, which the new leaders of Iraq will have to deal with when we have departed.
By comparison, the IRA, with no more than 300 active members at any given time, tied up tens of thousands of British troops for decades, and still didn't get wiped out, and in fact continued to wreak havoc.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
It's the old broken window idea: if there are a lot of unrepaired
broken windows in a neighborhood, thugs get the idea that nobody
cares, you can get away with things. When our troops arrived in
Baghdad, people were scared - "there's a new sheriff in town". But
then when looting broke out because there weren't enough troops to
put a squad on every street corner - and the troops didn't have
orders to protect key buildings, etc., the Iraqis got the idea that
the Americans weren't so tough after all. Look at New Orleans: the
harm is not so much in people grabbing food out of grocery stores
when there is none to be had any other way - but mostly they grab
firearms and liquor and go on to loot everything else.
It is true that plans often go awry - but that is not a reason not to
plan. One cannot argue that this is how we intended Iraq to turn out
all along. Now some will say that it just never works to invade a
country and rebuild it - but we did precisely that in Japan and
Germany. And no two cases are exactly the same. But it is true
that we did a lot of planning for those occupations, and had plenty
of troops to execute. It is also a fact that adequate planning was
not done for the Iraq occupation - and that the Army chief of staff
advised the use of more troops. This is not an ex post facto
argument: "things went sour so the planning wasn't adequate" - on
the contrary, Rumsfeld and Franks did not do the detailed and
rigorous planning for the post-conflict phase that is called for
under U.S. military doctrine. It's just a fact: they didn't do
their homework. When other entities (State and EUCOM) offered to
help with that aspect, Rumsfeld forbade the Pentagon to cooperate
with State on the one hand and Franks told EUCOM their support was
not required.
So when Johnny comes to school and says "the dog ate my homework" and
you don't believe him and reprove him, he answers "well I could have
just cut school" (not done Iraq at all). My point all along has
been that making a decision to take out Saddam (which could have been
justified by an articulate president) does not justify abysmal
diplomacy, mendacious justifications, and incompetent execution.
Glad to see you have internalized the idea that too many troops (now)
are just so many more targets for insurgents - and, I would add, a
big U.S. footprint just increases resentment by the locals.
Also, agree that it's a fools errand for a foreign force to try to
hunt down an indigenous insurgency (your IRA example). If the Iraqis
come to see Zarqawi and company as the outside interlopers ('cause we
are gone) then they will betray them to the security forces.
Hugh
broken windows in a neighborhood, thugs get the idea that nobody
cares, you can get away with things. When our troops arrived in
Baghdad, people were scared - "there's a new sheriff in town". But
then when looting broke out because there weren't enough troops to
put a squad on every street corner - and the troops didn't have
orders to protect key buildings, etc., the Iraqis got the idea that
the Americans weren't so tough after all. Look at New Orleans: the
harm is not so much in people grabbing food out of grocery stores
when there is none to be had any other way - but mostly they grab
firearms and liquor and go on to loot everything else.
It is true that plans often go awry - but that is not a reason not to
plan. One cannot argue that this is how we intended Iraq to turn out
all along. Now some will say that it just never works to invade a
country and rebuild it - but we did precisely that in Japan and
Germany. And no two cases are exactly the same. But it is true
that we did a lot of planning for those occupations, and had plenty
of troops to execute. It is also a fact that adequate planning was
not done for the Iraq occupation - and that the Army chief of staff
advised the use of more troops. This is not an ex post facto
argument: "things went sour so the planning wasn't adequate" - on
the contrary, Rumsfeld and Franks did not do the detailed and
rigorous planning for the post-conflict phase that is called for
under U.S. military doctrine. It's just a fact: they didn't do
their homework. When other entities (State and EUCOM) offered to
help with that aspect, Rumsfeld forbade the Pentagon to cooperate
with State on the one hand and Franks told EUCOM their support was
not required.
So when Johnny comes to school and says "the dog ate my homework" and
you don't believe him and reprove him, he answers "well I could have
just cut school" (not done Iraq at all). My point all along has
been that making a decision to take out Saddam (which could have been
justified by an articulate president) does not justify abysmal
diplomacy, mendacious justifications, and incompetent execution.
Glad to see you have internalized the idea that too many troops (now)
are just so many more targets for insurgents - and, I would add, a
big U.S. footprint just increases resentment by the locals.
Also, agree that it's a fools errand for a foreign force to try to
hunt down an indigenous insurgency (your IRA example). If the Iraqis
come to see Zarqawi and company as the outside interlopers ('cause we
are gone) then they will betray them to the security forces.
Hugh
Hugh,
I would concede that the decision to use 140,000 troops was not universally accepted by all parties involved. There was disagreement on the "perfect" number of troops.
But, the decision was finally made to use the 140K number, and it may or may not have been the "optimum" number, but it may impossible to know now, or ever, what the optimum number was or should have been.
Like I said before, using more troops has obvious benefits, but has certain detriments as well. And as much as I respect your military knowledge and experience, I just don't think there is anybody who can "definitively" say what the optimum number was, and how differently things quantitatively would have turned out IF we had used that optimum number.
It is a good point for discussion for military planners, perhaps left to military historians and war planners to discuss for years to come at West Point, but at this point, I don't think anyone really knows......too much remains unknown about the future of this conflict and the exact nature and number of the enemy.
I don't accept that they didn't do their homework.....they may have come to a different conclusion based on a different set of premises and assumptions, but just because there wasn't a complete agreement by all parties, doesn't make them wrong, or unprepared. That's my uneducated opinion and observation.
Marco
I would concede that the decision to use 140,000 troops was not universally accepted by all parties involved. There was disagreement on the "perfect" number of troops.
But, the decision was finally made to use the 140K number, and it may or may not have been the "optimum" number, but it may impossible to know now, or ever, what the optimum number was or should have been.
Like I said before, using more troops has obvious benefits, but has certain detriments as well. And as much as I respect your military knowledge and experience, I just don't think there is anybody who can "definitively" say what the optimum number was, and how differently things quantitatively would have turned out IF we had used that optimum number.
It is a good point for discussion for military planners, perhaps left to military historians and war planners to discuss for years to come at West Point, but at this point, I don't think anyone really knows......too much remains unknown about the future of this conflict and the exact nature and number of the enemy.
I don't accept that they didn't do their homework.....they may have come to a different conclusion based on a different set of premises and assumptions, but just because there wasn't a complete agreement by all parties, doesn't make them wrong, or unprepared. That's my uneducated opinion and observation.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
The fact that there weren't enough troops has been well documented -
they were standing around watching looting because they were too thin
on the ground to stop it - and had received no orders to. Now as to
the fact that military science is inexact: yeah, it's more of an
art, but the preponderance of military opinion was in favor of more
not fewer troops. Rumsfeld was so intoxicated with his shoe-string
victory in Afghanistan using special forces and a large domestic
insurgency that he wanted to use it as a template for 'transformed"
lighter forces in Iraq. Worked great while fighting the hollow Iraqi
army; didn't work when you had to occupy (that word again) heavily
populated areas.
The fact of incomplete planning for the post-conflict phase is also
well-documented. This is a highly structured process (dictated by
the infamous manual of the "Joint Operational Planning and Execution
System" or JOPES which is taught at every U.S. war college) and it
simply was not accomplished. Now my speculation (but I think it's
pretty likely) is that Rumsfeld and company did not want to do this
because they did not want a realistic evaluation of what would be
required in the post-conflict phase to interfere with the political
decision to go in the first place.
Now if everything had come up roses, with a peaceful occupation
leading to a stable Iraq, we would say Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney were
geniuses and erect monuments to their memories. But it is abundantly
clear that they bungled the job and deserve to be criticized for
recklessly sacrificing soldiers' lives through inadequate planning.
I respected Daddy Bush's statements before and during Desert Storm
that he had a duty as commander in chief to be "prudent" in
committing troops to battle, continuing to Baghdad, etc. The son
should have taken heed.
Hugh
they were standing around watching looting because they were too thin
on the ground to stop it - and had received no orders to. Now as to
the fact that military science is inexact: yeah, it's more of an
art, but the preponderance of military opinion was in favor of more
not fewer troops. Rumsfeld was so intoxicated with his shoe-string
victory in Afghanistan using special forces and a large domestic
insurgency that he wanted to use it as a template for 'transformed"
lighter forces in Iraq. Worked great while fighting the hollow Iraqi
army; didn't work when you had to occupy (that word again) heavily
populated areas.
The fact of incomplete planning for the post-conflict phase is also
well-documented. This is a highly structured process (dictated by
the infamous manual of the "Joint Operational Planning and Execution
System" or JOPES which is taught at every U.S. war college) and it
simply was not accomplished. Now my speculation (but I think it's
pretty likely) is that Rumsfeld and company did not want to do this
because they did not want a realistic evaluation of what would be
required in the post-conflict phase to interfere with the political
decision to go in the first place.
Now if everything had come up roses, with a peaceful occupation
leading to a stable Iraq, we would say Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney were
geniuses and erect monuments to their memories. But it is abundantly
clear that they bungled the job and deserve to be criticized for
recklessly sacrificing soldiers' lives through inadequate planning.
I respected Daddy Bush's statements before and during Desert Storm
that he had a duty as commander in chief to be "prudent" in
committing troops to battle, continuing to Baghdad, etc. The son
should have taken heed.
Hugh
Hugh, you said: <<I respected Daddy Bush's statements before and during Desert Storm that he had a duty as commander in chief to be "prudent" in committing troops to battle, continuing to Baghdad, etc. The son should have taken heed>>
It is funny that you mention Bush 41's "prudence" in not going to Baghdad. Most Dems now assail Bush 41 for "not finishing the job" against Saddam by FAILING to go to Baghdad. IF he had finished the job back then, we wouldn't be there now, so goes the logic. Even conservatives say that Bush should have ignored Powell's advice and gone into Baghdad, even if that "great coalition" would have fallen apart.
So the Dems in 91 didn't support the war, voted against it, and then "later" criticized Bush 41 for not going in, capturing Baghdad, and removing Saddam.
And the Dems now don't support the war, but don't want to say that publically, about half of them voted for it, and now are criticizing Bush 43 for an inadequate plan, or poor execution, or whatever. If it were up to the Dems, Saddam would STILL be in charge in Iraq, as they would not have invaded in 1991 or in 2003.
So, Bush is willing to accept the harping and expert hindsight, and proceed to "victory" by establishing Democracy in Iraq. And if we have to kill off a bunch of Saddam's thugs and foreign terrorists along the way, so be it.
I'm not holding my breath that Dems will ever say that Bush and Cheney are geniuses, even if everthing does turn up roses in Iraq. But the American people, even now with poor poll numbers, realized that political progress is being made in Iraq, and after this weekend, this will be evem more abundantly clear. Keep your fingers crossed for a good outcome in the Iraq weekend election. 3 provinces need a 2/3 vote to defeat the constitution.
Have a good weekend,
Marco
It is funny that you mention Bush 41's "prudence" in not going to Baghdad. Most Dems now assail Bush 41 for "not finishing the job" against Saddam by FAILING to go to Baghdad. IF he had finished the job back then, we wouldn't be there now, so goes the logic. Even conservatives say that Bush should have ignored Powell's advice and gone into Baghdad, even if that "great coalition" would have fallen apart.
So the Dems in 91 didn't support the war, voted against it, and then "later" criticized Bush 41 for not going in, capturing Baghdad, and removing Saddam.
And the Dems now don't support the war, but don't want to say that publically, about half of them voted for it, and now are criticizing Bush 43 for an inadequate plan, or poor execution, or whatever. If it were up to the Dems, Saddam would STILL be in charge in Iraq, as they would not have invaded in 1991 or in 2003.
So, Bush is willing to accept the harping and expert hindsight, and proceed to "victory" by establishing Democracy in Iraq. And if we have to kill off a bunch of Saddam's thugs and foreign terrorists along the way, so be it.
I'm not holding my breath that Dems will ever say that Bush and Cheney are geniuses, even if everthing does turn up roses in Iraq. But the American people, even now with poor poll numbers, realized that political progress is being made in Iraq, and after this weekend, this will be evem more abundantly clear. Keep your fingers crossed for a good outcome in the Iraq weekend election. 3 provinces need a 2/3 vote to defeat the constitution.
Have a good weekend,
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
So Bush and Cheney understood that Daddy Bush (and Cheney and Powell)
were right all along about how hard taking over Baghdad would be.
But when they decided they had to go to Baghdad after all (a decision
with which I agreed but on different grounds than how they sold it),
they then forgot that it would be a difficult task and failed to do
the planning and provide the necessary forces to be successful. I
guess Rumsfeld and Chalabi bamboozled them. I like the quotes around
"victory" - will we like the situation we get after thousands of
casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars and huge diplomatic
and world opinion losses? We are witnesses to a decisive-but-stupid
administration ricocheting from one unintended consequence to
another, playing it by ear. Does that mean I want a smart-but-
indecisive team instead? No, I think we can holdout for the best
(smart and decisive). Daddy Bush's team came close - the diplomatic
side was exceptionally well-handled. A united Germany, tactical
nukes locked up, and a start on the budget deficit - not bad. - Hugh
were right all along about how hard taking over Baghdad would be.
But when they decided they had to go to Baghdad after all (a decision
with which I agreed but on different grounds than how they sold it),
they then forgot that it would be a difficult task and failed to do
the planning and provide the necessary forces to be successful. I
guess Rumsfeld and Chalabi bamboozled them. I like the quotes around
"victory" - will we like the situation we get after thousands of
casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars and huge diplomatic
and world opinion losses? We are witnesses to a decisive-but-stupid
administration ricocheting from one unintended consequence to
another, playing it by ear. Does that mean I want a smart-but-
indecisive team instead? No, I think we can holdout for the best
(smart and decisive). Daddy Bush's team came close - the diplomatic
side was exceptionally well-handled. A united Germany, tactical
nukes locked up, and a start on the budget deficit - not bad. - Hugh
Bush 41 did what he thought was best politically and diplomatically at the time, and did not invade Baghdad. In retrospect, this was clearly a mistake. Saddam reigned terror on Iraq for another 12 years. Removing Saddam back then, contrary to the advice of Colin Powell, and installing a democracy would clearly have been preferable to leaving him in power, even if it would have hurt us "diplomatically".
So I don't hold Bush 41's diplomatic team in such high regard, especially with regards to the failed overthrow of Saddam.
So I don't hold Bush 41's diplomatic team in such high regard, especially with regards to the failed overthrow of Saddam.
More good news for the huddled masses:
1) Iraq passed its Constitution with a 78% approvall rate, and a 63% participation rate, including markedly increased Sunni voting. (Did someone recently mention that we have lost or are losing this war to Saddam?). Another vote is coming up in December.
2) Economy continues to hum along at a 3.8% growth clip despite the ill effects of the hurricanes.
3) As I predicted (correctly once again), there was NO FINDING of anyone "outing" a covert agent. And no finding of a "conspiracy" to harm Good Ol' Mr. Wilson.
4) Sunni "Insurgents" were guarding the Sunni voters from attacks by the foreign Islamic Terrorists near the polling areas.....does this represent a growing split in these two factions as the Sunni's begin to participate in the democratic process?
5) Bush scores an A++ for nominating Sammy Alito for the SCOTUS. An excellent choice, albeit belatedly. A very healthy and overdue debate as to the role and scope of the Courts will ensue in the following weeks.
Marco
1) Iraq passed its Constitution with a 78% approvall rate, and a 63% participation rate, including markedly increased Sunni voting. (Did someone recently mention that we have lost or are losing this war to Saddam?). Another vote is coming up in December.
2) Economy continues to hum along at a 3.8% growth clip despite the ill effects of the hurricanes.
3) As I predicted (correctly once again), there was NO FINDING of anyone "outing" a covert agent. And no finding of a "conspiracy" to harm Good Ol' Mr. Wilson.
4) Sunni "Insurgents" were guarding the Sunni voters from attacks by the foreign Islamic Terrorists near the polling areas.....does this represent a growing split in these two factions as the Sunni's begin to participate in the democratic process?
5) Bush scores an A++ for nominating Sammy Alito for the SCOTUS. An excellent choice, albeit belatedly. A very healthy and overdue debate as to the role and scope of the Courts will ensue in the following weeks.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
"Birth defects are beautiful,
In their o-own way..." - Hugh
In their o-own way..." - Hugh
Hey, this guy's been reading my posts here on the listserver!
Polls go up and polls go down.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007514
Marco
Polls go up and polls go down.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007514
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
That's fine, Marco. You guys just keep telling each other that
everything is rosy in your right-wing echo-chamber - that way you'll
be leading with your chin come election time. - Hugh
everything is rosy in your right-wing echo-chamber - that way you'll
be leading with your chin come election time. - Hugh
Don't deny the good news
Just because the MSM and the Dems are all-negative, all-the-time doesn't mean that good things are not happening that are UNDENIABLE.
The economy, by any historical measure, is purring along nicely at 3.8% growth rate this past quarter, and unemployment is barely above 5%, despite the effects of the hurricanes. And for you Clintinoids, this is hard to swallow since your entire platform was "it's the economy, Stupid". But at least try to be a bit realistic about measurable facts. If you do not want to give Bush any credit for the good economic numbers, that is fine, but please don't deny that some of the numbers ARE GOOD.
My gosh, in France and other parts of Europe, where the unemployment rate is 10-15 percent, they are having riots. Here we have domestic tranquility, for the most part.......but don't get happy about that either.
Marco
PS: I'm rooting for Forrester and Kilgore today (obviously).
The economy, by any historical measure, is purring along nicely at 3.8% growth rate this past quarter, and unemployment is barely above 5%, despite the effects of the hurricanes. And for you Clintinoids, this is hard to swallow since your entire platform was "it's the economy, Stupid". But at least try to be a bit realistic about measurable facts. If you do not want to give Bush any credit for the good economic numbers, that is fine, but please don't deny that some of the numbers ARE GOOD.
My gosh, in France and other parts of Europe, where the unemployment rate is 10-15 percent, they are having riots. Here we have domestic tranquility, for the most part.......but don't get happy about that either.
Marco
PS: I'm rooting for Forrester and Kilgore today (obviously).
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
As in the old Soviet Union, every day millions are trudging off to work to provide services and goods which are unnecessary. Adam Smith was right that greed is good for economic growth - but he didn't take Malthus into account. This isn't so much a Republican Democrat thing - the Dems have bought into the perpetual growth idea, too. More McDonalds and sprawling suburbs populated by television-addled lard-butts - is not a triumph of humanity.
- Hugh
>From: Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com>
>Date: Tue Nov 08 08:16:34 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Just because the MSM and the Dems are all-negative, all-the-time doesn't mean that good things are not happening that are UNDENIABLE.
>
>The economy, by any historical measure, is purring along nicely at 3.8% growth rate this past quarter, and unemployment is barely above 5%, despite the effects of the hurricanes. And for you Clintinoids, this is hard to swallow since your entire platform was "it's the economy, Stupid". But at least try to be a bit realistic about measurable facts. If you do not want to give Bush any credit for the good economic numbers, that is fine, but please don't deny that some of the numbers ARE GOOD.
>
>My gosh, in France and other parts of Europe, where the unemployment rate is 10-15 percent, they are having riots. Here we have domestic tranquility, for the most part.......but don't get happy about that either.
>
>Marco
>
>PS: I'm rooting for Forrester and Kilgore today (obviously).
- Hugh
>From: Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com>
>Date: Tue Nov 08 08:16:34 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Just because the MSM and the Dems are all-negative, all-the-time doesn't mean that good things are not happening that are UNDENIABLE.
>
>The economy, by any historical measure, is purring along nicely at 3.8% growth rate this past quarter, and unemployment is barely above 5%, despite the effects of the hurricanes. And for you Clintinoids, this is hard to swallow since your entire platform was "it's the economy, Stupid". But at least try to be a bit realistic about measurable facts. If you do not want to give Bush any credit for the good economic numbers, that is fine, but please don't deny that some of the numbers ARE GOOD.
>
>My gosh, in France and other parts of Europe, where the unemployment rate is 10-15 percent, they are having riots. Here we have domestic tranquility, for the most part.......but don't get happy about that either.
>
>Marco
>
>PS: I'm rooting for Forrester and Kilgore today (obviously).
Good news (growing economy) cuts both ways
Good news (growing economy/low unemployment) cuts both ways.
Peace and Prosperity always favors the incumbent.....although we are technically at war, we certainly are having prosperity, and true to the thread of this post, the people of NJ and VA decided to keep their incumbent parties in their governorships mainly because of this prosperity. So the Dems "HOLD" these two governorships. No net gain of governorships nationally.
Virginians also voted on all 100 of their House of Representatives on Tuesday, and Republicans won that battle 59-41, so once again, incumbents do well with perceived prosperity.
Marco
Peace and Prosperity always favors the incumbent.....although we are technically at war, we certainly are having prosperity, and true to the thread of this post, the people of NJ and VA decided to keep their incumbent parties in their governorships mainly because of this prosperity. So the Dems "HOLD" these two governorships. No net gain of governorships nationally.
Virginians also voted on all 100 of their House of Representatives on Tuesday, and Republicans won that battle 59-41, so once again, incumbents do well with perceived prosperity.
Marco
More evidence of good news:
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to raise interest rates again this week to keep the economy from overheating and to keep inflation under control.
Greenspan has historically decreased interest rates to stimulate the economy and raised them to "cool off" the economy.
Marco
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to raise interest rates again this week to keep the economy from overheating and to keep inflation under control.
Greenspan has historically decreased interest rates to stimulate the economy and raised them to "cool off" the economy.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
A silly "bluff call" by the Replicans and the administration. Another attempted deception which will not fool the public, and only heighten the perception of the administration's desperation.Marco Zee wrote:Congressmen vote 403-3 to reject immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Here is the full text of Murtha's speach which I recieved in an e-mail from Howard Dean:
Dean: "Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike."
Murtha: "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."
"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.
"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.
"My plan calls:
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.
"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.
"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
This was a bogus resolution introduced by the Republicans, not Rep.
Murtha's proposal. Contemptible demagoguery by the Republicans. - Hugh
Murtha's proposal. Contemptible demagoguery by the Republicans. - Hugh
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Because they were so advised to do so by the minority leader Pelosi to avoid the obvious sham the Republicans were trying to force. The idea that an intransigent party would do an abrupt turn-around and actually vote for a complete and immediate pullout was nothing more than a slap in the face of Murtha and an insult to the intelligence of the American public.Marco Zee wrote:If it's "bogus" and "contemptible demagoguery", why did so many Dems vote for it??????
You and your pals should be worried. They stand to loose both their majority in Congress and the White House if they keep this kind of crap up.
marcoLikeDuh
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
403 to 3, right? - Hugh