I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
More faith-based planning.
MYOB'
.
If they hadn't had Chalabi, they would have had to invent him.
Remember when the Bushies were being described as Mayberry Machievellis? Seems we were giving them too much credit. I recall something in the Prince about not trusting exiles...
On July 11th I wrote "Our troops need the Iraqi GHQ back in operation, and at least battalion-level local command and control capability, today. Sorting out the politics can wait." The full text is here:
http://kucinich2004.poliblog.com...ves/
000008.html
A few days later, after a childhood chum, eventually a Regular Army teacher at CAC came up for a sleep-over (I now speak "7 year old"), I wrote Reconstitute and Retreat
Its only been a few days since I wrote:
Call for the re-appointment of the Iraqi career officer corps, payment and re-arming the regular army and the transfer of control of the Iraqi metropolitian zones to the Iraqi Army, Green Lines of Control, etc., and a transitional plan that gets the last GI out of harm's way.
Our troops need the Iraqi GHQ back in operation, and at least battalion-level local command and control capability, today. Sorting out the politics can wait.
My motivation was attempting to get my friend to think out loud about exiting. All I got was the usual mindless drivel about "national government" and "Marshall Plan" and ... when I was thinking disengage this fucking week. So after he returned to the real world, I tried to ... find the controlling issue, and write. Full text at:
http://kucinich2004.poliblog.com...ves/
000019.html
Chalabi's head on a pike is a good starting point, but disengagement can be the goal for Dems, with a functioning Iraqi government assisting the extrication of forces, even a non-democratic military one.
George Bush was not mislead by Chalabi: he was chosen.
Chalabi told the stories Bush believed in. that eases up on the learning curve, keeps the faith, gives proof, etc...
I thought endless war WAS the plan.
.
Brooks is a rascist sack of shit. I've heard the same thing from bigots here in Raleigh. They are nostalgic for the old neighborhood they left for greener pastures and ever since the blacks moved in they let it go to pot.
Never mind that when they moved out their houses were sold to absentee landlords, and due to neglect and general wear and tear, the gold leaved homestead of their memories became cheap housing for people less advantaged then they. As that wave of inhabitants became more prosperous, they too moved on and another crop of people moved in, attracted to the propertie by low rents.
Racists like Brooks are willfully ignorant of simple economic forces that govern the lifespan of neighborhoods in big cities and small. They have a racist agenda that deprecates the people they purport to be speaking on behalf, and they should be shamed and hounded out of the public discourse.
Oops. Right tirade. Wrong thread.
If they hadn't had Chalabi, they would have had to invent him.
Dr. Pedant
Funny, that reminds me of an episode of the X-Files where some CIA honcho quipped that Saddam Hussein was just some schmoe they found at a dinner theater somewhere.
As invaluable as Saddam has been to the Bushies, I expect OBL to fully resume his Bush '04 campaign management duties next summer.
but wait ... if you put Chalabi in jail, or literally stick his head on a pike, you'll be putting Judith Miller out of a job, and as we all know, those are getting harder to come by.
PLEASE, somebody think about the warmongering hacks!
[/Helen Lovejoy]
Phil K. Dick fans will know what I mean when I say this "war" reminds me more and more of the short story "If There Were No Benny Cemoli."
Damn, Atrios, I came here to email you that article. The Post has a good op-ed by King today, on Bush lies about Iraq.
You mean "dropped the dog."
T.B. don't worry, Hacks are always in demand, she would land someplace safe, like the National Review.
someone beat me to the judith miller comment 
Here's one Philip K. Dick fan who agrees 100%. Dick was the great novelist of twentieth-century paranoia, by the way: read The Penultimate Truth and try to believe that it couldn't happen today.
I have read the accounts of the Clark interviews and my reaction is despair and anger. Why did my party's best operatives think it would be a good idea to subject their neophyte candidate to the country's savviest reporters for over an hour? Why have my party's elders rallied around a candidate who is so shockingly uninformed about core issues and his own positions? I am not a Dean supporter — but I am angry that our party's leaders have anointed an alternative to him who seems even more ignorant and unprepared — and that this supposed 'anti-war' candidate turns out to have been in favor of both the war resolution and Richard Nixon!! And let's not even talk about the Clintons. Today I am embarrassed to be a Democrat.
The flip-flop on perhaps the most important political question for the Democratic field - where he would have stood on the Iraq War resolution - was and is pathetic. More pathetic, however, is the notion that the Dems really did think of this guy as their savior. Are they that weak on national security issues that a general - even as hapless as this one - is their only chance? What does that say about their own self-image? I'm beginning to think that Dean and Gephardt could be the real survivors here. But Dean has just had the worst of the Republican judgments about his electability confirmed by his own party establishment. That must hurt a little, no?
that was from joan walsh, in salon
I tend to agree with those who have said that Chalabi fit the plan, rather than vice versa.
Democratic candidate seeks to clarify comments on Iraq resolution
MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
Friday, September 19, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
URL: http://www.drudgereport.com/
(09-19) 14:05 PDT IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) --
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war."
The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press.
"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
Clark's initial remarks left members of his campaign team a bit flummoxed.
"That caught me off guard a little. The general has been very critical of the war," said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist.
Clark launched his bid for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday with the type of media attention candidates crave, but early missteps underscore the dangers facing his late-starting campaign.
The former NATO commander and his campaign staff went back and forth on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week -- all in a single day. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Saddam, remarks that were at odds with his opposition to the war.
Veteran Democrats pointed out that Clark is in the unusual position of trying to put a major presidential campaign in place and clearly lay out his positions in the glare of the media spotlight. Other candidates have had months to hone their message below the political radar.
"If politics were theater, you get to open in New Haven (Conn.)," rather than on Broadway, said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who warned of the dangers of "policy on the fly."
Added Carrick: "Howard Dean has been out there for two years rehearsing his act."
Carrick compared some of the difficulties Clark has faced to the early days of Edward Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign where the Massachusetts senator tended to blurt out comments that reshaped the race. Kennedy predicted, for instance, that he would beat President Carter in Iowa; Carter easily prevailed.
Twenty-five years later those gaffes stick in Carrick's mind. "It completely changed the expectations,"
Twenty-five years later those gaffes stick in Carrick's mind. "It completely changed the expectations," he said. "It was all triggered by the late start."
The nine other Democratic candidates also have spent the last few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines.
"I'm sure Howard Dean has tried a variety of things along the way," said veteran Iowa activist Jeff Link. "By the time people began paying attention, he had it down pretty good."
Iowa casts its votes in four months, giving Clark little time to smooth out the rough edges.
"The question is, is he ready to jump into a huge national campaign that's just a few months away," Link said. "That is a pretty good sized organization with a lot of moving parts."
In the interview, Clark sketched out a checkerboard of positions, saying he would leave in place a tax cut for middle-income Americans and indicating his support for gun rights, although he supports a ban on assault weapons.
Clark said the helter-skelter effort to build his campaign was "like trying to bottle lightning," but he shrugged off the early stumbles.
"It doesn't bother me a bit," he said. "It helps you get the message out across America. When you start late, you need that."
©2003 Associated Press
Hmm. Why on earth would someone dump three totally off-topic long extracts attacking a Democratic presidential candidate into a thread on a liberal blog?
I am mystified.
You know, I'm beginning to think the French have it right -- they want a virtually immediate turnover of political power to Iraqis.
This is very risky, of course, but I think its become an issue of "greater risks", rather than "greater benefits". While immediate elections would present the risk of an anti-US Shiite theocracy being elected, delaying elections leads to the much greater risk that Iraq will disintegrate into chaotic civil/tribal/religious war, with US troops hunkered down in their enclaves while people starve all around them. Even an Iraqi government might not be able to prevent this outcome now, but the American administration certainly will not be able to do it.
Isbell: of course you're mystified. You're a fuckin' idiot.
Judith Miller bought Chalabi's line, too. If only the NYT would finally can her -
Dr Pedant nailed it.
Philip K Dick -- Wonderful writer. BTW --his death (too long ago) was reported on the front page of some French newspapers -- and virtually ignored here. Alas, I feel now like we in America are living in the midst of one of his grimly paranoid fantasies.
The current situation actually reminds me more of John Brunner -- a sort of combination of "Sheep Look Up" (65%) and "Stand on Zanzibar" (35%).
History should have taught the W crowd that those who claim to control "vast underground networks"
are almost always exaggerating a bit.
"Get Chalabi's head on a pike"? Hell, that would imply learning from their mistakes.
Instead, they've arranged for him to address the United Nations gathering of heads of state on October 2nd.
Joan Walsh is alying sack of shit. If she really had the courage of her alleged convictions she wouldn't give valuable "Salon" space to right-wing hacks and she wouldn't defend the murdererous couple who sicced their killer dog on Diane Whipple.
Meanwhile, where's Chalabi's chief supporter Christopher Hitchens? Only yesterday he was singing his praises in "Slate."
History should have taught the Bushies that puppet governments touted by exiles never work.
David E - OT, but Hitchens wrote one of the nastiest things I've ever seen in the TLS. He reviewed Robert Dallek's book about JFK - and you had to wipe the frothing spittle off the page. The man is rabid. I wrote my first letter ever to the TLS and complained.
Atrios: You know, if I were the Bushies I'd be figuring out how to get Chalabi's head on a pike.
If your aunt had a **** she'd be your uncle.
I've been sure the French had it right since it began.
Eric Brunner-Williams - Mais oui; mois aussi. Et tout le monde, pretty much, n'est pas?
As I understand it, instead of wanting Chalabi's head on a pike, they have placed considerable responsibility upon him to rally the Iraqis. I suggest they send him back to Jordan where he can take his lumps for his thievery.
tom brown - Chalabi rallying the Iraqis is going to be a good trick, since they apparently don't like him one bit. The man's a con artist and I second your suggestion to send him back to Jordan.
englishprofessor--
The Penultimate Truth!! you beat me to it...
To David E.,
good on you for pointing out that Joan Walsh is giving too much valuable "Salon" space to right- wing hacks. Am I to deduce from this that you still go there and read stuff? And re "Where is Chalabi's chief supporter Christopher Hitchens?": I hope Carol has kept the liquor cabinet well stocked is all I can say!
To Tena,
I have had to wipe 'the frothing spittle off the page' every time I have read Hitchens' vile pieces in the last few years, not just recently. And he said lots of vile things in an interview he gave to an Australian 'journalist' (I put this word in inverted commas because Hitchens really got the kid glove treatment). He also mentioned his good friend Chalabi in the course of that interview btw.
The question is, why has Chalabi been so wrong? Is he just a liar and a con-man, or does he have delusions of grandeur? Did he really believe that he had a vast underground network in Iraq, or was that just made up for Bush's benefit? Does he spend his free time standing at the mirror posing as Napoleon?
TO HELGA FREMLIN--
Quit being such a stupid slit, Helga. I've lost all respect for you, you ignorant Ozzy gash.
So Chalabi's going to address the leaders of the world at the UN, huh? Since when does that lying little crook speak for the Iraqis? Most would like to kill him.
Best case scenario: King Abdullah arrives at the presentation with handcuffs.
TR, I tend to lean toward the con artist theory. I think Chalabi was trying to get the Bushies to install him as ruler and therefore needed to convince them he was all powerfull in Iraq. And of course, they bought it hook, line and sinker. Chalabi obviously knew he was dealing with a gang of naive ignorant fools and that he could easily manipulate them. However, he's finding out that you can't manipulate the Iraqi people, who are more loyal to leaders on the ground than a crook who fled Iraq in 1958 when the monarchy got overthrown.
DAVID EHRENSTEIN IS AN IGNORANT FUDGEPACKING HACK. ANYONE HEARD OF HIS STUPID, FAGGY HOLLYWOOD "JOURNALISM" BEFORE HE STARTED SLUMMING HERE? I DIDN'T FUCKING THINK SO. GO FUCK SOME SOME BOYS, DAVID. I'M SURE SURE MOM AND DAD WOULD BE PROUD.
Such a shame that the hate freaks of the right wing have discovered this place. They seem to believe that they have some business putting tawdry attempts at smear attacks on left political candidates here (as if anyone takes them seriously) as well as spreading the hateful bigoted filth that the rightwing and the GOP are so well known for around here like it is their own little unreconstructed litter box to do with as they please.
Attention Rightwing Hate Freaks and Trolls: this is not your kitty litter box. Fuck off and die, you sad wastes of human flesh. You are consuming valuable oxygen that *humans* - as opposed to whatever you are - need to live.
Helga - I guess I just haven't read that much Hitchens, but what surprised me was that the Times Literary Supplement printed his review at all, let alone as the cover story. I've taken it for a long time now, and I've never seen anything quite like that level of invective in it before. Even some of the more memorable cat fights in the letters to the editor have been civil. Hitchens' piece was inexcusable.
It's been said before in other contexts but I'll be boring and say it here: Lying to other people is bad enough, but lying to yourself is the fastest way to hell there is.
I am frightened by my arousal when I think about David E's naked, shimmering body in the arms of another man.
Did somebody mention screwing a pooch?
"I am frightened by my arousal when I think about David E's naked, shimmering body in the arms of another man."
HOO YAH!
That would be to say that Bushs cares about the looting, sabotage and attacks against American forces.
Only so far as it messes with his poll numbers which he needs in order to practice the corrupt things he so will with getting away with.
The fact that Bush said "bring it on" is just to say that it's only the American laypeople and brown skined people out there getting looted and attack so what diffence does it make. It's just for the greater good of big oil. This one news reporter on NPR said the other day that the only building protected in Iraq during the war was the Oil Ministry building. Bush didn't care about the Iraqi History Museum or Iraqi Universities and at least the significance of that fact wasn't lost on Iraqis even if it is lost on most Americans.
So just keep telling yourself this war isn't about oil and that our VP Cheney isn't paying really himself from Halliburton nor give away high dollar unbid contracts to same company.
I think it's pretty obvious even without Friedman telling us "it's France's fault" and "you're nuts if think its about oil" but damn its sure looks like its about oil to me.
The only God Bush every really prays to is Godfather of big oil.
oops: "Only so far as it messes with his poll numbers which he needs in order to practice the corrupt things he is getting away with."
darn
Cheryl, please stop being so narrow-minded!
Saying that big oil is the only god Bush prays to doesn't do justice to the defense contractors, and plenty of other oversized corporations.
Anyway, one more point about Chalabi: The reason the Bushites haven't put his head on a pike is that he's still the only Iraqi "leader" (exile or otherwise) who'd be willing to accept permanent U.S military bases in Iraq and to play nice with Israel.
Busting him for his scheming and lies would mean the neocons having to give up on theirs as well.
It's wasn't listening to the wrong Iraqi-it was listen to oil companies.
Hey Bush, Saddam is a sitting duck after 10 long years of sanctions. We can take em and all the Iraqi oil and the Iraqis will love us for it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...&
category=11153
KerryGraham04.com on eBay! It's for sale!
Come on - Chalabi wasn't selling anything to GWB. He is a PNAC pawn reading from a script.
WHAT is the crap that JustInterested is pooping out?
David Ehrenstein, I go to your blog occasionally, and I can't think what you've written that would get ANYBODY that obnoxious.
And that is not to say your stuff isn't good or thought-provoking, it's just I don't consider you in any way shape or form HATEFUL; you're THOUGHTFUL.
Cripes. Everywhere you go there's always an asshole.
Did he really believe that he had a vast underground network in Iraq, or was that just made up for Bush's benefit?
It would really be funny if Saddam had fooled the INC (Chalabi) into thinking they had a vast underground network, just waiting to rise up.
Suckers.
Shit, we don't need Chalabi's head on a pike. Iraqis are working every day to accomplish that goal. Given their sticktoitivness and general determination, I think they're well on their way to success.
Riverbend had a great line "So Mr. Chalabi, if you seal the borders, how will you make your escape in a car trunk when the time comes.
ANYONE HEARD OF HIS STUPID, FAGGY HOLLYWOOD "JOURNALISM" BEFORE HE STARTED SLUMMING HERE?
No need to shout, we can 'hear' you quite well. And the answer is.... "yes" - now do you have a relevant question?
BTW David E., I love that picture.
There's a good solution to the PNACkers (actually, at this point I think motherpnackers is more accurate)--lock them up in Tuwaitha in the state they left it in.
Chalabi will look cute with a second head growing out his neck...just like Bx! Oh, wait, that's Karl Rove. Well, throw him in there too.
David,
I LOVE that picture of the 'cocky bastard' as well. Is your body as hot as that man's - only asking.
And it seems 'justinterested' really has it in for both of us.
Tena, if you want to read a really good analysis of Hitchens' writings and his 'going over' look here: http://www.counterpunch.org/
fink...in09102003.html
Cheers,
Helga
Chalabi is often derided as a Londoner who has little connection to Iraq. But I ask you this: which government, throughout the past century, has been more stable, free, and humane: Britain's or Iraq's? I think we can all agree that the UK has a superior record on this score. In that case, why is this a problem?
Frankly, I would be skeptical of Chalabi if he was _too_ popular with the Iraqi people. We need an Iraqi leader who is pro-Israel (i.e. pro-freedom and pro-civilization) and against all forms of fundamentalist theocracy. A leader who meets these criteria will probably be rejected by the Iraqis. Therefore, the Iraqis are not yet ready for self-government. Nor is most of the rest of the region. We must do what the British did a century ago and colonize the region for a few decades, teaching them the ways of civilization until they are ready for self-reliance.
http://www.aanbidden-
babes.maagd....maagdelijk.com | aangenaam amateurs actie | [URL=http://www.aangenaam-amateurs-
plassend.maagdelijk.com]aangenaam amateurs plassend[/URL] |
consolidation counseling credit debt services consolidation counseling credit debt services consolidation counseling credit debt services. asian betting tip asian betting tip asian betting tip.
black game jack java black game jack java black game jack java. mexican online pharmacy mexican online pharmacy mexican online pharmacy.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
