tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post4190518032463716791..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: Head's I Win...Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-62595361696580962672008-07-24T07:10:00.000-07:002008-07-24T07:10:00.000-07:00Marty - We owe it to the people of Iraq to do the ...Marty - <I>We owe it to the people of Iraq to do the best we can to clean up that mess. So we should leave when the government of Iraq decides it no longer needs our help, but we should not leave as long as they want our help.</I><BR/><BR/>So, telling them how long they need our help, and overruling the Prime Minister would be bad?<BR/><BR/>Because that's what we're doing. Go look at the evidence.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34472231395869695102008-07-23T21:17:00.000-07:002008-07-23T21:17:00.000-07:00Frank, you're quoting something I never discussed ...Frank, you're quoting something I never discussed here.<BR/><BR/><I>The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday <B>in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates. </B></I><BR/><BR/>I've been talking about the interview in Der Speigel, not an address given the the UAE.<BR/><BR/>It's been established that Maliki's office actually read the translation for the interview, and signed off on it. <A HREF="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx" REL="nofollow">details here</A>Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24524157954151354992008-07-23T15:19:00.000-07:002008-07-23T15:19:00.000-07:00Marty, that's an honorable position, but I don't a...Marty, that's an honorable position, but I don't agree with it. We removed a dictator who'd oppressed them for a generation -- for reasons having nothing to do with them, admittedly; that war always had more to do with the '02 midterms than anything else. But this isn't Pottery Barn, and you break it, you bought it isn't a principle that works for me when American soldiers are getting killed.<BR/><BR/>If the Iraqis want a civil war, and certainly many of them do, I think we should get out of the way and let them go.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24626893930381627712008-07-23T14:22:00.000-07:002008-07-23T14:22:00.000-07:00Dan: I was against the war before we went in. Lies...Dan: I was against the war before we went in. Lies or no lies it was a bad idea. But when we went in and overthrew Sadam we created a mess in Iraq. We owe it to the people of Iraq to do the best we can to clean up that mess. So we should leave when the government of Iraq decides it no longer needs our help, but we should not leave as long as they want our help.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-15512976429883859002008-07-23T14:20:00.000-07:002008-07-23T14:20:00.000-07:00"It seems to me that McCain said that if violence ..."It seems to me that McCain said that if violence levels were down, IT WOULDN'T MATTER if we stayed 100 years."<BR/><BR/>McCain said that if violence was down, he'd be fine with us maintaining a presence in Iraq for 100 years.<BR/><BR/>That's a clear statement of his position.<BR/><BR/>He has since gone on to say there's nothing wrong with an ongoing miliatry presence in Iraq, much like we have in South Korea or Japan.<BR/><BR/>If you agree with that, Steve, that's cool. But I don't think I'm distorting anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-39623397257730866972008-07-23T13:33:00.000-07:002008-07-23T13:33:00.000-07:00The surge has worked, so credit due there. The num...The surge has worked, so credit due there. The numbers of American soldiers dying each month has dropped from upwards of a hundred down to the the dozens. The question now becomes, is the Iraqi occupation worth 35 dead American soldiers a month?<BR/><BR/>Nope.<BR/><BR/>Bush had three options back when he decided to go with the surge: get out, surge, stand pat. Standing pat was patently insane, almost as insane as taking us into Iraq in the first place on a pack of lies. Getting out would have been an admission of failure no sociopath like Bush could ever allow. So we had the surge, and at the cost of only another thousand+ dead American soldiers. Cheap at the cost, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>Now we're down to an average of 35 dead American soldiers per month in Iraq over the last 9 months. And conservatives are jubilant over this.<BR/><BR/>We've lost over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, in a war founded on lies. Conservatives can chant "the surge worked" -- great. Now we only have 35 soldiers a month dying for no fucking reason in a war based on lies. Congratulations to everyone concerned.<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to November. So are all the children who won't be orphaned every month once Bush is out off office, for absolutely no reason at all except Bush's ego and Republican politcs.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-78170117027358945702008-07-23T10:22:00.000-07:002008-07-23T10:22:00.000-07:00Josh JasperMaliki later claimed he was misquoted i...Josh Jasper<BR/><BR/><I>Maliki later claimed he was misquoted in the Speigel article.</I><BR/><BR/>You'd like to think so, I'm quite sure.<BR/><BR/>But, <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm" REL="nofollow">no.</A><BR/><BR/><I>The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".<BR/><BR/>That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.<BR/><BR/>It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.<BR/><BR/>There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.<BR/><BR/>Mixed messages<BR/><BR/>In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".<BR/><BR/>What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."</I>Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-13482430207238885962008-07-23T09:55:00.000-07:002008-07-23T09:55:00.000-07:00Maliki later claimed he was misquoted in the Spei...Maliki later claimed he was misquoted in the Speigel article.<BR/><BR/>He lied when making that claim. He did so at the behest of the White House, who decided that no, Maliki was not a sovereign leader, he was a White House PR flack, and would take orders that were designed to hurt a Democratic party contender for the upcoming election.<BR/><BR/>It's not that we're saying "no", it's that we're making him dance for us in order to deflate the boost that this quote gave to Obama.<BR/><BR/>More goal post shifting.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-33452695853134340942008-07-23T09:04:00.000-07:002008-07-23T09:04:00.000-07:00Steve BarnesIf Maliki says he wants a 16-month tim...Steve Barnes<BR/><BR/><I>If Maliki says he wants a 16-month time frame, and we say "no," then they are not a sovereign country, and we are treating them with contempt.</I><BR/><BR/>True. But what Maliki said, as <A HREF="http://patterico.com/2008/07/20/spiegel-rewrites-interview-with-maliki/" REL="nofollow">reported by Der Spiegel</A>, was<BR/><BR/><I>Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. <B>Assuming that positive developments continue</B>, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.</I><BR/><BR/>(emphasis, mine)Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-11269017672024656772008-07-23T08:58:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:58:00.000-07:00Steve BarnesWho said: "We have to leave Iraq becau...Steve Barnes<BR/><BR/><I>Who said: "We have to leave Iraq because we've lost?" I haven't heard that anywhere. Citations?</I><BR/><BR/>Where <I>have</I> you been?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/" REL="nofollow">April. 20, 2007</A><BR/><BR/><I>WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year...</I><BR/><BR/><I>"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.</I><BR/><BR/>And then <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/us/politics/22vets.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/U/United%20States%20Armament%20and%20Defense&pagewanted=all" REL="nofollow">there's this</A> from the New York Times<BR/><BR/><I>KANSAS CITY, Mo., Aug. 21 (2007) — Senator Barack Obama said Tuesday that even if the military escalation in Iraq was showing limited signs of progress, efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” and American troops should not be entangled in the sectarian strife.</I>Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-33186954325719751922008-07-23T08:53:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:53:00.000-07:00If Bush said to Maliki, "Retract your statement or...If Bush said to Maliki, "Retract your statement or my troops will have you arrested," that's one thing. But leaders asking or presuring other leaders to give or retract statements is nothing new or even unusual, even if that means that the other leader has to lie.<BR/><BR/>Old joke: How do you know when a politician is lying?<BR/>Answer: Their lips move.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-44941531427541996602008-07-23T08:08:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:08:00.000-07:00It seems to me that McCain said that if violence l...It seems to me that McCain said that if violence levels were down, IT WOULDN'T MATTER if we stayed 100 years. The Left-wing has distorted this into "he wants to stay 100 years." I twitch every time I hear that. It bothers me because it is exactly the kind of distortion I hear from the other side, and I wish "my" side was better than that. Apparently, no one is. <BR/>#<BR/>If Maliki says he wants a 16-month time frame, and we say "no," then they are not a sovereign country, and we are treating them with contempt. It is PERFECTLY reasonable to assume that people who are not saying that upfront, but feel it, will lie about other things too...for instance, their reason for wanting to be there?Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24235260926364008732008-07-23T08:01:00.000-07:002008-07-23T08:01:00.000-07:00Who said: "We have to leave Iraq because we've los...Who said: "We have to leave Iraq because we've lost?" I haven't heard that anywhere. Citations?Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-40511129079136026272008-07-23T07:58:00.000-07:002008-07-23T07:58:00.000-07:00Marty - This is a case of seeing things the way yo...Marty - <I>This is a case of seeing things the way you want not the way they are. If we can really get out of Iraq in 16 months or less that is great.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it really is up to the Iraqis to continue to invite us to stay in their country. Otherwise it's not their country, it's ours.<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that Iraqis are or aren't ready, it's that we're not letting them make that choice, while at the same time lying to the entire world in saying that we are.<BR/><BR/>Either they are, or are not a sovereign nation. It's that simple. And the proof here is that they aren't. We're correcting their leaders statements to the media behind the scenes. When he says something that the Bus administration disagrees with for political reasons (in that it supports Obama) they get chided, and forced to lie.<BR/><BR/>You seriously need to quit ignoring that fact.<BR/><BR/><I>The correct position is I will retire when conditions are right and the same is true for leaving Iraq.</I><BR/><BR/>Then they're not able to decide to ask us to leave? The pretense that Maliki is making independent decisions is a really blatant fiction.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-67259905695065366432008-07-23T06:48:00.000-07:002008-07-23T06:48:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08483616030072739190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-9432880462672003952008-07-23T05:07:00.000-07:002008-07-23T05:07:00.000-07:00AFIBut he does mention a 16-month timeframe. Which...AFI<BR/><BR/><I>But he does mention a 16-month timeframe. Which coincides nicely with Obama's views.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but Maliki has always overestimated the capability of his forces.<BR/><BR/>Recall the operation in Basrah. He sent in his Army without telling either us or the British. Which was fine, but then they got bogged down. And they got bogged down because a) they still don't have a good logistical operation and b) they don't have any tactical air.<BR/><BR/>So we had to help them with the supply lines and we had to help with the air support.<BR/><BR/>And no matter what you or he thinks, it will be a while before they have the logistical and air capability required.<BR/><BR/>Amateurs think fighting on this level is all pointy stick, but the fact is that a spear has to have a long shaft to be effective.<BR/><BR/>Iraq doesn't have logistics; Iraq doesn't have Air; Iraq doesn't have a Navy. It needs all of these things and once they have these things they need to be integrated in order to work together.<BR/><BR/>This takes time.<BR/><BR/>And then there is the matter of their NCOs. The backbone of any modern fighting force is their NCOs. You need a strong NCO corps in order to effect successful operations where squads must operate independently to exploit opportunities within the stated mission parameters. And experienced military trainer will tell you that it takes 7 to 10 years to develop an experienced NCO corps.<BR/><BR/>And then there is the biggest weakness in Iraq: the police. They have much farther to go than the Army.<BR/><BR/>Now Maliki is saying he'd like to see Iraq operating independently by 2010, but he is also saying it depends on the security situation. So as I have explained, Maliki is being optimistic, and he is putting the same caveat as Bush and McCain. McCain, however, is being more realistic about how this is likely to play out.<BR/><BR/>And Obama is either being naive or disingenuous.<BR/><BR/>Take your pick.<BR/><BR/><I>And contrasts sharply with John McCain and his "we'll be there for 100 years" beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you deliberately misrepresenting McCain's position or are you just uninformed?Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-12909790622872596622008-07-23T04:20:00.000-07:002008-07-23T04:20:00.000-07:00This is a case of seeing things the way you want n...This is a case of seeing things the way you want not the way they are. If we can really get out of Iraq in 16 months or less that is great. But if we can its because the surge worked. A surge supported by McCain and opposed by Obama. It is also within McCain's supported time frame. McCain 's position was never we will stay in Iraq for 100 years. It was we will stay in Iraq as long as conditions require that we stay there, EVEN IF IT TAKES 100 YEARS. This was the correct position also. You might like to retire at a given date say your 55 birthday, but taking a position at thirty that you are going to retire at a certain age without regard to what your financial situation or health situation is folly. The correct position is I will retire when conditions are right and the same is true for leaving Iraq.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-27730050525461346842008-07-22T20:45:00.000-07:002008-07-22T20:45:00.000-07:00Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with Pre...<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html" REL="nofollow">Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.<BR/><BR/>“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said. </A><BR/><BR/>Except that Der Speigel let Maliki's office go over a draft of the interview before it was published, to clear up any misquotes or mistranslations.<BR/><BR/>This is what "heads, I win, tails, you loose" looks like.<BR/><BR/><I>Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.</I><BR/><BR/>"Diplomatic communications" clearly meant pressuring Maliki to lie. Remember the Iraqi Information Minister? Comical Ali, AKA Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. That's what this reminds me of. The lies are so blatant and stupid.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24071022131876188012008-07-22T20:24:00.000-07:002008-07-22T20:24:00.000-07:00Maliki did, in fact, give a thumbs up to Obama's t...Maliki did, in fact, give a thumbs up to Obama's time frame, and when caught saying so, got a phone call from the White House telling him to retract his story. He then liked and said he was mistranslated.<BR/><BR/>So what is this nonsense about the US under Bush actually considering Maliki to be a sovereign ruler who gets to make his own decisions? Provably false. <BR/><BR/>The mistranslation claim? <A HREF="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx" REL="nofollow">provably false</A><BR/><BR/>Why is anyone arguing over this?Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-32615974183901704702008-07-22T17:11:00.000-07:002008-07-22T17:11:00.000-07:00"And if Maliki came out and said today: "I want al..."And if Maliki came out and said today: "I want all Americans to go home. Now." That would happen.<BR/><BR/>But he doesn't say that, and he won't say that; at least not in the immediate future."<BR/><BR/>Fine.<BR/><BR/>But he does mention a 16-month timeframe. Which coincides nicely with Obama's views.<BR/><BR/>And contrasts sharply with John McCain and his "we'll be there for 100 years" beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34264131699434019282008-07-22T17:03:00.000-07:002008-07-22T17:03:00.000-07:00Pretty much all Bush is looking to do is put this ...Pretty much all Bush is looking to do is put this off on the next President. He's got American troops stuck in the middle of a civil war for no good reason, the Republican Party's going to get creamed in November because of it; Republicans are writing off '08 and looking to the future. They can't win the Iraqi civil war, only the Iraqis can do that, but they can shift the blame, and at the cost of only a few thousand American troops. Plainly they consider it cheap at the cost.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-87606771538621050492008-07-22T15:37:00.000-07:002008-07-22T15:37:00.000-07:00AF1Leaving because the Iraqis want us to seems lik...AF1<BR/><BR/><I>Leaving because the Iraqis want us to seems like sound reasoning to me. </I><BR/><BR/>Clearly.<BR/><BR/>And if Maliki came out and said today: "I want all Americans to go home. Now." That would happen.<BR/><BR/>But he doesn't say that, and he won't say that; at least not in the immediate future.<BR/><BR/>And why doesn't he say that? Why won't he say that in the immediate future?<BR/><BR/>Because he knows what would happen to his country and his people if we left anytime in the immediate future.<BR/><BR/>So it is clear, what is going on is people (i.e. US and Iraq) trying to determine when we can leave a relatively stable Iraq in our wake. <BR/><BR/>Saying anything else is misrepresenting the situation and obscuring the facts for no good reason.<BR/><BR/>And I emphasize "good".<BR/><BR/>And it is not just that. We are trying to negotiate the conditions under which we will <I>stay</I>, not leave, in Iraq after the rules governing the UN mandate expire in December. I point that out <A HREF="http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/2008/07/iraq-negotiatio.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123761608738909200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-16150156618607227552008-07-22T14:33:00.000-07:002008-07-22T14:33:00.000-07:00How about, nobody invited us there in the first pl...How about, nobody invited us there in the first place?Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-26763986640861379722008-07-22T13:59:00.001-07:002008-07-22T13:59:00.001-07:00Leaving because the Iraqis want us to seems like s...Leaving because the Iraqis want us to seems like sound reasoning to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-5047374837606745222008-07-22T13:59:00.000-07:002008-07-22T13:59:00.000-07:00Lost or won, the majority of the Iraqis want us to...Lost or won, the majority of the Iraqis want us to leave. the PM seems to think that Obama's figures are about right, given the conditions. <BR/><BR/>Either they're a sovereign nation or not. If they're not sovereign, we're an empire, not a Republic.<BR/><BR/>This is beyond the question of should we ever have invaded, which is a separate question. If you say "we never should have invaded" that doses not mean the same as "I want us to loose". Conflating the two is part of the Republican playbook though.<BR/><BR/>It seems not to be working. <BR/><BR/>Steve's point in the political part of the post was about moving goalposts. Both sides do it to some extent, but the amount of goalpost moving by the Bush administration on the Maliki quote is particularly egregious.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/" REL="nofollow">Talking Points memo has a pretty good breakdown of the story</A><BR/><BR/>There are multiple posts, but this one gives a good breakdown of the major points in which the Bush administration just lied to us, and made Maliki lie too <A HREF="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/204829.php" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Ordering a foreign head of state to lie on your behalf is about the most contemptible abuse of power I've seen Bush engage in... this week.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.com