Captain's Quarters -

Like the chickens in Orwell's "Animal Farm," all liberals can do is flap their wings and chant brainlessly. Instead of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" they scream "Bush is an idiot! Bush is an idiot! Buck-buck-buck-buh-cawk!"

When it comes to Iraq, that idiot has completely and utterly outmaneuvered all the towering intellects in the Senate and the media, hasn't he?

Must be humiliating to have your face ground into the dirt time and again by a man you consider your inferior on all levels.

Do some more impotent seething, why don't you? It cheers me up every time.

I don't know what the fuss is about. Reuters journalists have always been anti- American and anti-Bush, and this is not the first time they have destroyed the truth to try and tear Bush down.

Ok, so we should call them on it, but that is about like telling a socialist that he should pay taxes.

It just doesn't compute.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

This is the reaction of the Left when President Bush offers an homage to Mandela?

What floors me is that even in it's truncated form Bush's metaphor is easy enough to spot when he goes from the singular form to the plural form of Mandela that he's speaking about the people in Iraq. But I guess since I'm only a brainwashed former Marine without a college degree that maybe I'm too simplistic.

Bush is a moron.
That is established fact.
And no Mandela can save him

Same sort of thing happened with Bush's 2003 SOTU. He made the point that we cannot wait until the threat becomes imminent. Within a short period of time Kennedy and Pelosi were chattering about Saddam not being an imminent threat. But I imagine both slept through the speech.

Civil disobedients need a democracy of sorts, since even Apartheid South Africa only jailed Mandela, to survive, or like the early Christians they get thrown to the lions.

"A man with a degree from Yale, an MBA from Harvard and who can fly a F-102 jet fighter is called an idiot by millions of Americans. Imagine how educated and talented they must be." Author unknown
And I'll add, former Governor of Tx and current POTUS.
***
Sashal: Now just how smart are you? Dumb as a box of rocks would be the guess based on your comment. You are probably as high on the totem pole as you'll ever go. Get used to being a loser and a lackie.

well Bush is an idiot. Only an idiot would trade Sammy Sosa for a washed up Harold Baines.

I've seen/read the comment over a number of times and, while obtuse in Bush's inimitable way, wasn't the mangled gaffe people are claiming. The stupid part isn't Bush sounding like he said "Saddam Hussein killed Nelson Mandela," but the conceit that we didn't screw up, Saddam killed all the people we could have worked with. It's a pathetic, weasely attempt to start another meme to distract from his own fundamental failures. It's not that there are no Iraqis who understand democracy and tolerance; we created an environment in the wake of our invasion that effectively used up all the oxygen those things need to flourish, regardless if there were some sort of Mandela-like guy in the wings waiting to take over. Besides, wasn't that supposed to be Ahmed Chalabi's job?

kingronjo, I'll give you that one.

From what I can see, a lot of Reuters' "journalists" have names that include "Mohammad" at some point in them, from which I infer that English may be a second language to them. If Reuters does use a lot of non-English speaking people in its staff, it wouldn't be unusual for them to misunderstand an English-speaker, especially if it's a subtle reference, and they don't have a lot of Western history to fall back on.

Nevertheless, it does make Reuters look way-stupid, and I hope management and their Arab staff are both humiliated to death.

The irony is that Bush himself was clearly quoting someone else. I suspect *he* got the quote right...

So let me get this straight....Bush is an idiot, but a reuters reporter thought that Bush said THE Nelson Mandela was dead? Do I have this right so far? And then he proceeded to write a story about it, thereby proclaiming for all the world what an idiot the reuters reporter, in fact, is? And let's not forget the editors (those many layers of them) who completely missed such an obvious mistake by said reporter (and when I say "obvious", I mean only an "idiot" could miss it). Now, I would NEVER suggest all these people are actually, you know, idiots, but if they're gonna throw the word around so freely while simultaneously performing to this low standard, they might want to find a new career. I mean, this makes even dan rather look bright.

It’s despicable, as usual. It’s why the MSM is imploding. Each day that goes by, thousands turn off their TV and switch to sources such as blogs. Each day that goes by, thousands drop their subscriptions to newspapers. And with each lie and each misstatement, the MSM dies just a little bit more. Eventually, it will be nothing but home improvement shows, cooking shows, and recaps of this week in the blogs. When I was a kid, you new it was true because it was on TV or in the paper – that’s how you knew it was more than rumor. Now, the MSM has become a joke and people are talking about it. If it’s on MSM, who’s paying for the message and who’s’ agenda does it fit. If you think about it, it’s one of the few issues that both liberals and conservatives agree upon – the MSM is a joke.

I watched the Bush clip and his meaning would have been obvious to a child.

Sashal, you don’t belong here. If you want to make an intelligent statement, then welcome, but snipping is out of place here. Any person in the U.S. that is able to rise to a position of Cabinet, General, Secretary, Justice, Senator, Congressman or President is an absolute mental giant and that includes the politicians that I like and the ones that I don’t like. They are all mental giants compared to the average person. If you were to meet one of these people in person, you would walk away feeling like a dwarf or a child. I’m growing very weary of the tired “Bush is dumb” argument. Tom says it well – this so called chimp of an intellect has bullied his hostile congress (which I state is a group of genius level intellects) since the 2006 election. He has absolutely dominated them.

MSM journalists probably are morons. It would certainly explain their never-ending gullibility for pseudoscientific claptrap like "global warming" (or “climate change”, or “global cooling”, or whatever the spin-of-the-day is).

But in this particular case, I suspect that the Reuters journalist was doing what MSM journalists do best – blatant, unmitigated, unapologetic lying.

At best, this was a badly flubbed attempt at a metaphor. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we can assume he meant to say "Where's Iraq's Mandela?". Even so, that's pretty minor in the long list of Bush gaffes.

ff11, I can only assume you did not read the actual post.

Reuters....it's all about nuance.

runawayyyy asks:
a reuters reporter thought that Bush said THE Nelson Mandela was dead? Do I have this right so far?

Do I have this right so far? (emphasis Eric)

Do I have this right so far? (emphasis Eric)

Do I have this right so far? (emphasis Eric)

Eric says:
Wow. What a powerful question. It's a question that Reuters and the AP have never asked. You have done more due diligence in you BLOG post than they do for an international wire post.

FF11:

To paraphrase the late Clara Peller in that old Wendy's ad that Mondale used as a campaign theme:

"Where's the gaffe?"

Sashal, you too.

If the issue is supposedly that we killed all the democrats by accident, why in hell does the press claim this:

"Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq."

Bottom line: the press has the attention span of a flea with a personality disorder, as do lefties like yourself.

kingronjo says:
well Bush is an idiot. Only an idiot would trade Sammy Sosa for a washed up Harold Baines.

Eric says:
At least you support your argument with a correct fact.

I posted this on both Newsbusters and stoptheaclu.com this afternoon. It is infuriating that these anti-American cretins have such a voice!

The worst thing about it is, after that lie of a headline even al Reuters admitted that Bush was talking metaphorically and not literally. So, they knew all along that they were liars.

ff1:

Bush is not responsible for the fact that the reporter is dense.

ff11 says:
At best, this was a badly flubbed attempt at a metaphor. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we can assume he meant to say "Where's Iraq's Mandela?". Even so, that's pretty minor in the long list of Bush gaffes.

Eric says:
Clearly you have not seen the video. It was a very well delivered and effective mataphor.

Never mind, Eric. That one appears to be a drive-by.

Sasha1 smirked:

"Bush is a moron.
That is established fact."

Sasha1...that "moron" has beaten your side of the aisle like a drum since he took office. He brainwashed your side into voting for the Iraq War, and kicked your arses on the illegal alien amnesty bill. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I'm just curious: what is YOUR "educational background"?

My guess is that you've never been able to accept that "Chimpy" beat Gore in 2000, when 7 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices ruled against Prince Albert's faux lawsuit to try and steal an election with a major assist from a bunch of rogue "Judges" in Florida. And you've never been able to accept that when all those newspapers that endorsed Gore did their own Florida vote recounts, they all found that Bush would still have won, unless a vote-counting "standard" that Gore himself refused to endorse was used.

Then came 2004, when the smirking idiot got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did in a Presidential election.

Get a grip. Bush isn't running for anything now. In other words, MOVE ON (dot-org)

Mwalimu Daudi says:
MSM journalists probably are morons. It would certainly explain their never-ending gullibility for pseudoscientific claptrap like "global warming" (or “climate change”, or “global cooling”, or whatever the spin-of-the-day is).

Eric says:
Correct. The progressive lie of the day, based on research and scientific fact that later disappears. Based on fear (i.e. global warming.)

It would be the equivalent of conservatives saying that if we don’t support the Iraq war, a meteorite will hit the Earth – and all scientist agree. Then fire and persecute the scientist that don’t agree.

To me, it shows a lack of confidence. An inability to state an opinion and allow it to stand on it’s own merit. Instead, they (the progressives,) feel that they have to support the idea with what is often time’s false evidence. This so-called gaffe is another form of false evidence. Purposefully misstated.

And they (progressives) simply can’t see why we become infuriated over this type of thing. I say, how can a progressive continue to defend the same liars over and over. It’s just not very progressive to do such a thing.

At the end of the day though, it’s clear to me who Reuters feels is dumb and I know they don’t believe that it is the President of the United States. They believe that the people who consume their media are dumb. They think that we are dumb. That is the message.

Just another reason that I refuse to donate to the Journalism School at my university anymore..
not one more dime..not one more....

Nelson Mandela isn't dead?

No, Bennett...just like Timothy Leary...he's on the outside looking in.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | September 21, 2007 8:11 PM

kingronjo, I'll give you that one.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

On the other hand, everything we have gone through makes us what we will be, tomorrow. Maybe Sammy wouldn't have been Sammy, without this experience, you never really know.

I've got this really fabulous kid in my house, right now, but he has a few squirrelly ideas and tries to act like he doesn't even know what I'm talking about, sometimes. It is going to take a few shakeup that I really don't want him to have to bring forth the best he can be, from him. I hope it isn't really rough on him, but he has some really great things in him, so I'm concerned. You know what they say, the size of your test shows the size of your testimony that God is trusting you with... We're all old enough to have seen this, before.

Always glad to see a Sammy get his message.

Behind this intentional misquote is probably alot of George Soros cash.

When did John Kerry/Joe Biden/Chuck Hagel/Rick Santorum start writing for Reuters?

The journalists knew perfectly well that Bush didnt mean that Nelson Mandela was dead. They point of their reporting was to pass along what Bush said, and point out in a manner too subtle for many of you that Bush is incapable of speaking without screwing up. Even for those people who think the sun shines out of his ass, its clear that he is the worst public speaker of any president in decades.

If "point out in a manner too subtle for many of you" means that the MSM lied through their teeth (again), then I agree. Otherwise.....

It's not the constant MSM lying that bothers me that much anymore. I have come to the conclusion that most journalists seem to have the morals and ethics of Joseph Goebbels (who can be considered their patron saint). It's the fact that the MSM tells clumsy, stupid, unimaginative, easy-to-disprove lies that really irritates me. Why is it that all of these self-proclaimed journalistic geniuses keep recycling the same tired old tricks and frauds over and over again? If they must churn out fables and fiction to sell their political snake oil, at least get some new script writers.

WMass

We are well aware that Bush is not the most talented orator. Even I, a staunch supporter, have referred to his administration as communications challenged.

Bush's unfamiliarity with his native language is part of his charm. It's why we call him dubya. We love his malapropisms (did I get that right ) as we loved Yogi's.

However Bush's charm would stand for nought without his actions. We couldn't imagine Bush turning a blind eye to serious threats to his country's safety-as did his wonderfully articulate predecessor.

Nor could we imagine dubya being more interested in screwing his teenage staff than doing his job. Or going abroad and announcing that America is a pariah (because it is giving blood and treasure to create a better world).

I could go on but you get the point. Bush may not be Cicero but he is also not a leftist dupe or a nebbish, a traitor or an opportunist. He is head and shoulders above anyone on the other side-all of whom would have cracked if under the pressure he's withstood for the past 6 years (pressure created because his most articulate predecessor left America so unprotected and Democrats attacked Bush rather than take responsiblity for their own falings).

Hell, a little thing like a successful Surge has them losing their minds.

Some people are impressed by a glib tongue. Some of us prefer character.

If you cannot logically defend your postion or refute somoone else's, you can always just call them stupid or idiots and then you can dismiss them without the effort of thought.

George W. Bush had the exact same SAT score I did. (1350) on the old two part version. When acqaintances tell me how stupid Bush is, I tell them to stop calling me stupid.

Terry Gain, nicely put.

I would much rather have to daily deal with Dubya's malapropism's and be able to relate to the guy, than have to spend four or eight years listening to the holier than thou pretentious Patrician pap of a John Kerry, or the colloidal condescension of an Al Gore. Frankly, I am not looking forward to the whiny tones of a Hillary very much either.

OOOh---
So it's NOT alright to make a big deal out of someone mincing words? I could have sworn that you guys love to do that to Kerry and Gore? I guess I'm wrong again.

coldwarrior415

You needn't worry. The pacification of Iraq is proceeding apace, so aside from her funding scandals, she's going to be defending her attacks on Petraeus-the man who won the war.

As events unfold in Iraq one will need to suspend disbelief to imagine that she will be the next POTUS. (She no doubt thought it was a clever line but it will come back to haunt her).

With any luck at all the weakness of her candidacy won't be apparent until after she"s confirmed. Given that she would do just about anything to be POTUS I find all of this rather funny. The timing is very interesting. It looked like Kerry had a lock on the Presidency until his betrayed comrades came along and provided the details of his very brief service.

Ironically, Clinton's candidacy will implode because of her betrayal of Petraeus. All of this has me convinced that God isn't dead but She is certainly menopausal.

ck, we make subjective judgements every day, some rational, some less so. Human nature at its best or worst.

Despite the fact that I like the guy, admire the guy, and find his political courage of the utmost caliber, Joe Lieberman has a problem that he cannot easily dispense. His voice. During the Gore-Liberman campaign, the local county head of the Democrat Party, a friend of mine, almost had his head handed to him when he mentioned in conversation in a group of friends that Lieberman's voice reminded him of Droopy the Dog of in the old 1940-50's Tex Avery cartoons.

Unfair? Probably. A subjective judgement? Certainly. Something that weighs on the minds of a good many people when they look at a candidate? Sure is. In the same subjective manner as John Kennedy's hair won him votes.

I'm quite liberal and have been for a while. Bush's metaphor didn't confuse me though; I understood what he meant right away. Perhaps it was a little inartfully put (John Stewart had fun with it on the Daily Show), but it was certainly clear. I didn't see any mention of it on the lefty blogs I frequent; they were concentrating more on his concluding remarks.

Seems like a sad statement of the President's (whom I don't misunderestimate) that the Iraqis have this democratically elected government (as he insists), but admits that none of those elected have any leadership qualities because real leaders didn't survive Saddam.

Political assassinations seem to be continuing apace, as happened to Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Reesha not long after being congratulated as an ally of America and a leader among his people.

The irony, of course, is that Vice President Cheney, as a member of Congress, with President Reagan, tried what they could to keep Mandela imprisoned as a terrorist and supported the brutal apartheid regime.

As we arm opponents of the Shiite majority central government, and we arm and train the military of that government, I see why the President thinks the Mandelas there have been killed. Perhaps their Mandela is being held in some prison.

"That does mean a moron attended the press conference, but it wasn't the man behind the podium."

You stand on a podium, or behind a lectern. Great post, sorry for the pedantry.

The journalists knew perfectly well that Bush didnt mean that Nelson Mandela was dead. They point of their reporting was to pass along what Bush said, and point out in a manner too subtle for many of you that Bush is incapable of speaking without screwing up.

WMass, is that what is meant by "fake but accurate"?

Just to keep up my liberal bonafides, the Mandela metahphor didn't confuse me, but i still wasn't impressed with what the President said.

"Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

Now what irritates me here is that he seems to be implying everyone unreasonably expected an instant Democracy to take root in Iraq after the invasion. The thing is I didn't expect that. I remember reading experts on that part of the world at the time saying Iraq was like a beam under pressure, you had myriad ethnic forces including the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds, it was all kept together by Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and if we didn't know what we were doing it was liable to fly apart when Saddam was overthrown. And unfortunately that's turned out to be true.

So it wasn't people like me who were unrealistically expecting Iraq to bloom into a democracy overnight, I figured it would turn into a long occupation where we'd end up for years propping up the government, that's why I dreaded it and opposed it at the time.

No, it was people in the administration who expected Iraq would go from a ethnically divided ruthlessly governed dictatorship to a democracy that would be an inspiration that part of the world in short order. Certainly no one in the administration told the country that after we toppled Hussein's government, we'd need to keep over a hundred thousand American troops fighting and dying over the next five, ten, or twenty years to bring stability to Iraq. If they had, I doubt there would have been much support for the enterprise.

So it's great that after four years of occupation with things getting worse year after year, the President has just now discovered that, hey, it's going to be difficult to put in place a democracy given the conditions in Iraq, and he's just now sharing that pearl of wisdom with us. I just wish he'd thought more about this before we invaded.

More importantly, what was painfully missing from his exposition is what the solution to the problem is going to be. Ok, expecting instant democracy is unrealistic, there are no Nelson Mandela's, Saddam killed them all. Got it. So we're going to . . . . . what? And this is what should have logically came next in his talk, but if he said it I missed it. What we seem to be doing is supporting a government made up of Shia fundamentalists in uneasy alliance with the kurds, a government where the Sunni's had no significant power and so left, a government friendly to Iran, a government that seems likely to have ties with some of the death squads that have been persecuting Sunni's, a government that's made only a few of the benchmarks we set for uniting Iraq and so far hasn't shown much inclination to go beyond that.

So I know our fighting men and women will do everything we ask of them and do it brilliantly, but unless that's matched with political progress of the Iraqi government, unless the Iraqi's themselves determine to go beyond tribal or sectarian interests to come together, no matter how well our soldiers fight, we will not reach our goal of a stable unified Iraq. So what's the plan? it's not right to ask our troops to keep fighting unless there's a plan for victory, but so far all it seems to amount to is we'll keep supporting them with our troops and hope that they start to shape up and begin working to come together. An if they don't, well, uh,. . . we hope they will.

So this is what the President needed to tell us; what is the plan for victory? The President said democracy in Iraq wouldn't arise overnight because there wasn't a basis for it after Saddam's regime; thank you, I did know that. But he didn't go on to outline how we were going to succeed given that. And again, we fight we win is not an answer. No matter how well we fight, it won't make a bit of difference unless the Maliki government does it's part, and so far they've given us no cause for optimism.

"He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And I understand it's hard work for them. "

Now this is just weird. No, there is not a psychological recovery taking place, I wish there was. There are over four million refugees in Iraq, the educated classes have largely fled the country, there's a shortage of doctors, dozens bodies typically turn up in Baghdad showing signs of torture. The country has been transformed into a hell. People are not recovering, they're being freshly traumatized. And that line about hard work is just bizarre; it reminds me of his performance in the debates with John Kerry.

"Having said that, I'm not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts."

Uh, he did give them a pass on their reconciliation efforts. We set up a number of criteria for political progress they were supposed to meet by September. They failed almost all of them. As a result we're continuing to support them with no reduction in troops,and it's obvious we will no matter what happens at least until 2008. If the President's going to say this, he has to say what the penalties for the government's failures to meet the goals will be, which he hasn't. As it stands, we're unconditionally supporting them with our troops,and hoping they keep up their end of the bargain.

"I also said in my speech, local politics will drive national politics. And I believe that. I believe that as more reconciliation takes place at the local level you'll see a more responsive central government."

Well I hope he's right. We have had some success allying with the Sunni local groups in Anbar, that's been one of the few positive stories out of Iraq. But so far, all the indications are these groups we are helping do not support the Maliki government, do not like the American occupation, and are currently helping us because they see us as the lesser of a number of evils for now. It's probably good we're helping them, but there's no guarantee they won't be turning against the Maliki government or even us in the near future. It's not much of a plan to help these groups and then hope that somehow they'll reconcile with the central government.

Now probably none of you will believe this, because I'm an evil nasty liberal, and you all know that we liberals want America to fail in Iraq and some of you would like to hang us from the gallows. But I would love to see us succeed in Iraq. It would be fantastic to end the violence, to end the ethnic cleansing, to bring the refugees home, to turn Iraq into a stable self governing country. I just don't see how it's going to happen. And it has nothing to do with the courage or ability of our men and women in uniform, that's not the issue. The issue is, is there enough will within the Maliki government and within enough of the Iraqi population to put their interests as a country above their sectarian or tribal interests? The President told us there are no Nelson Mandela's in Iraq. Alright, that being the case, how are we going to succeed?

I don't know what you want to hear, Rick Taylor. In this country, when people take up arms against the government--remember Waco?--they are not granted a 527 and a hearing in Congress to present their agenda. They get squashed.

There's a self-sustaining political system in Iraq that is gathering the force needed to impose its authority on violent elements. Given enough time and bullets it will win through. You want guarantees it will not collapse into civil war--but nobody gets those guarantees. Not even the United States.

A bitterly-divided government full of Muslim extremists with close ties to Iran--that describes France. Pretty much everybody has diplomatic relations with Iran. By African standards, the "hell" of Iraq is fairly mild, and even hellholes like Rwanda recovered. Through military action.

The fact that Iraq can't pass an oil-revenue sharing deal is just as much proof that Iraq doesn't need an oil-revenue sharing deal at this point, as it is of Iraqi failure. What's the worst case scenario there--that Iraq banks the money and various versions of the deal become a campaign issue in their next national election in 2009?

If we're going to CHOOSE to consider it impossible for the United States to commit 160,000 troops to low-level combat for four years, we are going to have worse geopolitical problems than Iraq in the next few years.

Um, didn't Maliki only recently meet with the sheiks of Anbar?

The reconciliation among the sectarian factions may not be keeping pace with our Congress's timetable, but resolving the differences among a people with a lengthy history of grievances with each other is a matter requiring a finesse that Maliki seems adept in effecting. Saving face is part of successful negotiation.

BTW We are not *arming* the cooperating Sunnis who are turning against AlQaeda. They are using their own weapons.

What? Nobody's yet lectured the Cap'n on why he shouldn't be so mean and criticize journalists? I'll bet that writer from Reuters is only 34 years old: just a kid! You can't say bad things about him (or her)!

Otherwise, our resident lefties have responded about the way I would have expected:

"Bush is an idiot."

"Iraq is a failure."

"Republicans do it, too."

In other words, with all the wit, creativity and originality of your average six year-old.

There is, however, a notable exception:

Rick Taylor: Now what irritates me here is that he seems to be implying everyone unreasonably expected an instant Democracy to take root in Iraq after the invasion. The thing is I didn't expect that.

You may not have, but the lib argument about "Quagmire!" and "We gotta get out now!" is based on the fact that (gasp!) Iraq hasn't turned into Switzerland yet. We set "benchmarks" on the Iraqi government and, when they don't meet all of them, the Benedict Arnolds throw up their hands, shed crocodile tears, and say that this is proof that they NEVER WILL.

I'd say that a reasonable argument can be made the Bush and Co. didn't realize just how tough the occupation would be; what they knew, didn't know, or should have known will be a matter for historians to debate in years to come. But I'd also say that whining about Iraqi "failure" to become a modern, secular democracy by lunchtime last Tuesday comes mostly from the left.

So it's great that after four years of occupation with things getting worse year after year, the President has just now discovered that, hey, it's going to be difficult to put in place a democracy given the conditions in Iraq, and he's just now sharing that pearl of wisdom with us. I just wish he'd thought more about this before we invaded.

Well, things seem to be getting better. I understand how you might think otherwise: the MSM just LOVES to report about every car bombing in Iraq and shout score of dead Americans. But what are we to do? Give up? And I believe that Bush DID say that the war would be long and hard. Were some statements from him and the administration overly optimistic? Yes. Does this mean we've got to quit?

More importantly, what was painfully missing from his exposition is what the solution to the problem is going to be. Ok, expecting instant democracy is unrealistic, there are no Nelson Mandela's, Saddam killed them all. Got it. So we're going to . . . . . what? And this is what should have logically came next in his talk, but if he said it I missed it. What we seem to be doing is supporting a government made up of Shia fundamentalists in uneasy alliance with the kurds, a government where the Sunni's had no significant power and so left, a government friendly to Iran, a government that seems likely to have ties with some of the death squads that have been persecuting Sunni's, a government that's made only a few of the benchmarks we set for uniting Iraq and so far hasn't shown much inclination to go beyond that.

What I think he meant by "no Mandelas" is that there is (unfortunately) no single man with wide respect among ALL the Iraqis who could bring the country together. We in America were VERY fortunate to have George Washington, a man revered by most Americans throughout our infant country who had just the right temperament and stature to lead the United States through its first years. There is apparently not such a man in Iraq; Saddam killed them all. It's harsh to say, perhaps, but we (and they) are trying to win a tough game with the second or third string. This makes it harder, but not hopeless.

Now, as far as the "Shiia-dominated government", we have been pushing to get the Sunnis involved. We've been pushing to keep the Kurds involved. It's not easy; we recognize that there are serious (not to say homocidal) animosities between the various groups in Iraq that make it hard to build a central government that fairly represents all the parties. I note that Maliki recently met with Sunni leaders and appears to be at least trying to reach out to them. There are Sunnis in the Iraqi parliament. The situation is not as bleak as you make it out to be. But even if it was, should we quit?

No, there is not a psychological recovery taking place, I wish there was. There are over four million refugees in Iraq, the educated classes have largely fled the country, there's a shortage of doctors, dozens bodies typically turn up in Baghdad showing signs of torture. The country has been transformed into a hell. People are not recovering, they're being freshly traumatized. And that line about hard work is just bizarre; it reminds me of his performance in the debates with John Kerry.

There are unquestionably parts of Iraq that are hell; these are places where we haven't succeeded in routing out the terrorists (yet). But to say that the entire country is "hell" and imply that it is all getting worse is ridiculous. Even some in the MSM have noted that the situation in places like Anbar and Diyala has begun to dramatically improve. As for psychological recovery... I'm not psychologist, but it seems incredible to me that there ISN'T such a recovery occurring. Are we really to expect that people who were brutalized for decades by Saddam and his secret police and are in the midst of a war with terrorists are perfectly normal and adjusted?

But let's assume that you're right and Iraq continues to go to hell in a handbasket. Shall we just quit?

Uh, he did give them a pass on their reconciliation efforts. We set up a number of criteria for political progress they were supposed to meet by September. They failed almost all of them. As a result we're continuing to support them with no reduction in troops,and it's obvious we will no matter what happens at least until 2008. If the President's going to say this, he has to say what the penalties for the government's failures to meet the goals will be, which he hasn't. As it stands, we're unconditionally supporting them with our troops,and hoping they keep up their end of the bargain.

"They failed almost all of them." So, by extension, this hopeless Iraqi government, a mere tool of Shiia radicals, floundering in a country that is disintegrating, actually did SOMETHING right? Say it ain't so! Perhaps if we give them more time, they might-possibly-maybe-could-be do more things right.

What penalties should be assign to the Iraqi government for their failure that won't set them up for MORE failure? This whole thing might well have been easier had we done with Iraq as we did with Germany in '45 and established a US military government for several years. For better or for worse, Bush didn't want to do that, so we're stuck with the hand that we have. The Iraqis elected Maliki; if they aren't happy with what he's doing, then he'll be out in the next election and we'll see how well the next guy does.

Well I hope he's right. We have had some success allying with the Sunni local groups in Anbar, that's been one of the few positive stories out of Iraq. But so far, all the indications are these groups we are helping do not support the Maliki government, do not like the American occupation, and are currently helping us because they see us as the lesser of a number of evils for now. It's probably good we're helping them, but there's no guarantee they won't be turning against the Maliki government or even us in the near future. It's not much of a plan to help these groups and then hope that somehow they'll reconcile with the central government.

If you or the other libs have a better plan, I think we'd all like to hear it. A plan other that "Get out now!", that is.

Now probably none of you will believe this, because I'm an evil nasty liberal, and you all know that we liberals want America to fail in Iraq and some of you would like to hang us from the gallows. But I would love to see us succeed in Iraq. It would be fantastic to end the violence, to end the ethnic cleansing, to bring the refugees home, to turn Iraq into a stable self governing country. I just don't see how it's going to happen. And it has nothing to do with the courage or ability of our men and women in uniform, that's not the issue. The issue is, is there enough will within the Maliki government and within enough of the Iraqi population to put their interests as a country above their sectarian or tribal interests? The President told us there are no Nelson Mandela's in Iraq. Alright, that being the case, how are we going to succeed?

It's called doing the best you can with what you have and not giving up because the job is tougher than you thought it would be. Above all, it's called not quitting.

Rick Taylor

Given the perormance of key Democratic Party politicians throughout a war that that party voted for, and then undermined when the war "dragged on" and it became politically advantagous to undermine it, it is richly ironic for any liberal in America to complain about the quality of Iraqi politicians.

Iraq will be pacified long before America's leftists understand how they have undermined progress in Iraq with their partisanship.

If you were an Iraqi would you throw in with someone who is constantly threatening to leave? America's left has blood on their hands. And nothing in their heads.

Well at least they're reporting something he actually said. As opposed to the report by an Abbas aide-de-camp who put the "God told me to strike Iraq" quote in his mouth. That one comes up all the time over at MoveOn.

Analogous to the Fallon "a$$kissing chickensh*t" quote. Someone told me they heard that, then 24 business hours later it's in TruthOut.

At some point, these anti-Bushies must answer a simple question: Why hate Bush at the expense of my own intelligence? Why make a fool of myself to show everyone how much I hate Bush?

Actually, Bush probably killed Mandela. And if not Bush then it likely was Rove.

Engram of Back Talk has a post up which projects that if the current trend continues for the next 10 days September wil be the most peaceful month in Iraq since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February 2006.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/

This is from Pat Dollard's site.

In Diyala province, tribal leaders representing 20 of the province’s 25 major tribes have signed agreements brokered by the local government, said Army Col. David Sutherland, a brigade commander there.

In signing the agreements, the tribal leaders have agreed to support Iraqi and U.S. forces and oppose al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists. Most of the tribal leaders have signed on in the past several months.

...

Diyala province is strategically important because of its location — between Baghdad and the Iranian border — and its significance to al-Qaeda.

Since being pushed from Anbar province, al-Qaeda declared its intention to establish a caliphate, or Islamic rule, in Diyala province, said Maj. Gen Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multi-National Division North, which includes Diyala. The province is among the top three in terms of enemy activity, according to the Pentagon’s quarterly report to Congress released Monday.

Unlike Anbar province, which is predominately Sunni, Diyala is mixed. Of the 20 tribes that have signed, 11 are Sunni Arab, six are Shiite Arab and three are Kurdish, the U.S. military said. The 20 tribes represent about half the province’s 1.6 million population.

“The most important piece of it is understanding who the important people are of influence,” Sutherland said.

-------------------------------

Rick Taylor's broken record pessimism isn't supported by the facts on the ground. Petraeus told the truth.

It seems that everyone, except some liberals, had no trouble understanding what Bush meant.

But the liberals keep telling the rest of us that we are the idiots.

Strange.

Waco was not an uprising against the govt.
It was a bunch of rogue govt agents attacking a group of people who had up until that time lived quitely and peaceably, not disturbing anyone.

The courts have ruled time and time again, that you don't have to surrender, just because someone yells that he is a police officer. They have to show your the badge.

Not that this applies in the Waco situation. In Waco they just rolled up and started shooting. Is it any wonder that those inside started shooting back?

MarkW, granted that describes Day One, what about Day Two, Day Three, etc.?

skeptical,

It was the Reagan Administration that signed into law the 1986 Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, though he did threaten to veto the Act as the Administration had serious concern that the Act would hurt the very people it was intended to assist...the majority of the people of South Africa. The Act passed by an overwhelming vote of both Houses of Congress, with ample approval by both Parties.

One of the things Reagan did insist on was that those American companies that had subsidiaries in South Africa, Ford Motors, for example, make a sustained effort to hire South African Blacks for management and leadership positions within the company's operations in South Africa. This effort to convince/compel Ford to hire Blacks in areas that were officially denied them by the Apartheid government led to other companies and other countries insisting on doing the same. The sanctions AND the growth of the global insistance that all areas of the South African economy be opened up to the hiring of Blacks is one of the key things that brought apartheid to its knees and also allowed for an educated, trained Black communit to generally seamlessly assume responsbility for all segments of the South African economy when the Apartheid regime was forced to face reality. This is what made the new South Africa, and Mandela, a distinct cut above all other Sub-saharan African countries when real independence was achieved. Without this insisteance on bringing Blacks into all areas of the economy, the South Africa "miracle" would not have taken place as well as it did. Mandela had the wisdom to understand this and used it well in his effort at reconciliation across South Africa, something the African National Congress, to include Mandela's wife, Winnie, vehemently opposed, as they believed retribution for a century of Apartheid was needed first.

Your assertions are neither factual nor defendable.

Reagan was one of the most eloquent presidents ever, yet liberals were still quick to call him dumb as well.

kroj:

Boy, ain't hindsight great? Actually, your cute-shot is funnier the less you know about baseball.

The Sosa that Texas traded was batting a whip-whopping .240, on his way to a season-adjusted 7 home runs and 20 rbi.

The Baines Texas got had averaged .289 in 9½ seasons and .294 over the next 9½ seasons.

Those are the kind of judgments made day-in-day-out in baseball about 20-year-olds, and by the way, not by owners. But you knew that.

What a baseball genius. Your name Ryan?

Regarding S. Africa. What many of us predicted has come true. Many S. Africans, both black and white, are starting to look back at the apartheid days with nostalgia.

Yell,

So everytime someone wanted by the police fails to give themselves up, that constitutes and armed rebellion against the govt?

It was nothing more than an armed standoff with a group of people who didn't trust the govt. (on good grounds, the same guys demanding that they surrender, had just finished trying to murder them)

Rick Taylor's opinions makes me proud to be a (fellow) liberal. He criticized the meat and potatoes of the actions in Iraq and not digging into nonsense non sequiturs.
I turned away from liberalism because of the arrogant self-righteous whiny attitude they give W every time he speaks. And I wanted to give the Wedgie Of A Lifetime to that smary Dana Milbank and his echo chamber in the comments section. Pray, how is their smirking saving Iraq or SCHIP?

ps. since we Dems control the House and Senate, will they save SCHIP or put in some ridiculous rider in order to trap the President at the expense of children?

Regarding S. Africa. What many of us predicted has come true. Many S. Africans, both black and white, are starting to look back at the apartheid days with nostalgia.

If that's true, then no one should criticize the Reconstruction of Iraq (unless it is only the whites who are complaining in SA). Heck it took this country 15 years and a war that cost 625,000 lives (and we didn't even fight in another country)* to even begin to straighten it out.

We had nothing to do (directly) to change SA. What we are seeing is what happens when a majority group regains power. It happened in Serbia, happening in SA and happening in Iraq.

*yes there was a boat battle in France, but I'm not counting that ;)

MarkW,

South African Blacks being nostalgic for Apartheid? Sure would like to see a good peer-reviewed reference for that one.

coldwarrior415, Reagan signed that into law because it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, was passed over his veto, and his insistence on hiring blacks came after opposing the Sullivan Principles for years, as did Cheney, as some kind of unenforcible, revolutionary mumbo-jumbo that would undermine American business and geopolitical interests. Both supported, rhetorically and actively, the apartheid government for years when leaders around the globe opposed it, and when American grassroots activists worked to oppose that government and businesses that profiteered from it.

Reagan and Cheney claimed and acted upon the belief that Mandela and the African National Congress were terrorists and, not reformists trying to create democratic government, but pro-Communists. As a Cold Warrior, you must remember that some of your old colleagues lumped Mandela and the ANC in with the Soviet Union, and supported many dictatorial governments all over the globe that opposed democratic reform in some cases by claiming to be anti-Communists, and in some cases we worked to overthrow popularly elected governments, and assassinate popularly elected leaders because we thought they were too cozy with the Soviet Union. That included, ironically, this government under Reagan, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Cheney, Mandela, and the African National Congress. Your attempt to rewrite history and whitewash who supported whom isn't factual.

Supporting the apartheid government, supporting their apartheid laws as anti-Communist laws, supporting their imprisonment of Nelson Mandela is one of the uglier episodes in our nation's history. The Sullivan Principles were developed and in 1977 and gained international popularity well before Reagan reluctantly signed into law 1986 Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act that he had vetoed. Making it sound like Reagan insisted on them is nonsense. He opposed them and efforts to insist that corporations adopt them.

And, no, Mandela was NOT a political figure whom everyone could unite behind in his country, which was why he had spent so much of his life in prison there. He was a principled political figure whom large, powerful groups opposed because he stood for empowering in a democratic government people who had been disenfranchised by the ruling government. President Bush was lamenting neither Maliki, nor any of the current crop of political leaders in Iraq are such a principled leader. Perhaps Saddam killed them all. Or perhaps they have fallen victim since the insurgency became a civil war.

It's because the country is in the throes of a civil war that most Americans believe we should leave, not because we're making or not making progress against anti-coalition insurgents. All the analogies about beachheads and progress against OUR enemies doesn't negate that most of the violence there is Iraqi factions killing other Iraqis, whether it's sectarian or not. After millions have been displaced as internal or external refugees, it may be that some formerly mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad are no longer suffering from as much sectarian violence.

Perhaps their Mandelas were killed by Saddam. But the President was right to lament, when asked, Where is their Mandela? that there doesn't seem to be one.

When will the President ask Congress for more troops? Why hasn't he?

skeptical: When will the President ask Congress for more troops? Why hasn't he?

Hmmm... Could it be because the Pentagon hasn't told him that they need more troops?

But let me ask a question of my own: since the Congress controls the purse and ALWAYS seems able to find money to fund... well, anything they want... And since certain members of the congressional majority constantly tell us that the military is "overstretched", why doesn't the Congress increase military appropriations and provide more troops whether the president asks for them or not?

But I've always been interested (!) in the left's constant whining about "we need more troops"... when they aren't whining "we need to start redeploying out of Iraq". The left also likes to whine that the Iraqis aren't doing enough to secure their own country... when they aren't whining that we need to send more troops and essentially do it for them.

As I've written in other threads, the left's treasonous attitude about the war has little or nothing to do with the war per se; they couldn't care less about how many troops are killed in Iraq or whether the military is overstretched or whether troops get "rest" between deployments. All they care about is hating Bush. The complete lack of rationality and consistency in their "criticism" makes this pretty clear.

Terry Gain: Great post!

"Bush may not be Cicero but he is also not a leftist dupe or a nebbish, a traitor or an opportunist. He is head and shoulders above anyone on the other side-all of whom would have cracked if under the pressure he's withstood for the past 6 years (pressure created because his most articulate predecessor left America so unprotected and Democrats attacked Bush rather than take responsiblity for their own failings)."

And by the way, he has gotten a hell of a lot more articulate over the past six years. I heard most of the latest news conference, and he was clear, good-humored, and right on point.

/Mr Lynn

Misunderestimated again!

Thank you Mr. Lynn. It's nice to receive kudos from someone who writes so intelligently and eleganty. (This means I agree with most of what you write)

It occurrred to me when I say your first post -quite some time ago -that you weren't THAT MR. LYNN.

I saw this posted elsewhere on liberal forums. I do have a problem with it. It was clear what he meant. That said, I've been annoyed far longer with the way the right does this. The difference is that the right's candidates actually start picking up on it and use it. I don't recall any of the left's candidates referring to this. Taking a person's words out of context possibly cost Gore the election when everyone claimed he invented the internet, although he was trying to say he was the only one in Congress to take the initiative in creating the internet - which was true. Captain Ed has even recently poked fun at Gore for that very same quote taken out of context. Kerry made a joke trying to say Bush was not very well educated, and the right took it out of context, put it all over the news, had politicians chiding him and even tried to get the troops all riled up about it.

To say the least, it seems extremely hypocritical to draw attention to this rather irrelevant "gotcha" piece, when not only do you (Ed) and the person you also linked to (Malkin) personally take part in the same game.

That said, you're right, it should stop.

Gee, docjim505, I thought it was William Kristol who whined we didn't have enough troops, and myriad others who supported the war from the beginning. I think that was the attitude of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He must hate America, and President Bush.

If you mean that going into Iraq was a bad decision, and that we should get out, I'd say at this point the treasonous attitude toward the war per se you refer to affects the overwhelming majority of Americans. Got enough rope to string 'em up?

Let's see, attitudes are treasonous now. What else can we arrest people for . . . thinking?

Kerry made a joke trying to say Bush was not very well educated, and the right took it out of context, put it all over the news, had politicians chiding him and even tried to get the troops all riled up about it.

ck

If you believe Kerry's explanation you should put on a dunce cap. Kerry got caught making fun of the troops. His explanation was a cover and a stupid one at that. Bush is better educated than Kerry so he obviously wasn't referring to Bush but the young uneducated soldiers who volunteered to fight "Bush's war".

So, skeptical: Bill Kristol not only sets military policy, he is the Voice of Absolute Authority? Should we fire GEN Petraeus, appont Kristol the Admiral General, and send him to Iraq?

I'd also like to note the tense: "Bill Kristol WHINED..." It may be that more troops in the past would have been useful; we'll never know because that was then, this is now. You asked why the president hasn't asked for more troops from Congress, and I suggested that it COULD be because the Pentagon hasn't asked for them. If Bill Kristol was the SecDef or Chairman of the JCS, perhaps the Pentagon WOULD ask for them. If they did and the president said "no", then I'd say that you'd have a valid case for criticizing him (but you'd have to get out of my way, because I'd be first in that line). Unless and until you can demonstrate that the Petraeus and the Pentagon have asked for troops, then I'd say your blather is just typical liberal criticism motivated by BDS: ANYTHING he does is wrong.

Or are you simply incapable of discriminating between a well-known conservative writer and actual officials of the government?

As for your assertion - one that libs often make - that some huge majority of Americans agree with you, I must ask: are you libs such sheep that you naturally retreat into polls and "majorities" to give your positions some veneer of legitimacy? Are you so intellectually vacuous that you can't defend your position on your own without having to resort to the juvenile "Everybody else agrees with me so I must be right and you must be wrong!"?

At any rate, as has been pointed out at CQ many times, if such a whopping majority of Americans "agree" with you and want to stop the war, why doesn't the Congress do it by cutting the funding? Could it be that their polling is a little more sophisticated than whatever Kos polls you've read, and they know that Americans, however much they may dislike the war and want it to be over, aren't quite ready to surrender yet? And that they will be very angry with politicians who arrange such an outcome? It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.

As I stated on another thread, our country is at war. You libs want us to lose. What should we call this attitude if not "treasonous"?

Thank you all. I’ve gotten a lot of responses, and as I’m madly preparing to teach classes I’m not able to respond to all of them, but I do appreciate them; some of them at least made me think. If I had time I’d write more, but this is a short reply to one point.

docjim505 wrote, “If you or the other libs have a better plan, I think we'd all like to hear it. A plan other that "Get out now!", that is.”

You make a fair point here. I would like to hear more from the Democratic candidates about what they want do in Iraq beyond withdrawing troops. I can see why they concentrate on promising to get out; that’s going to be popular with the base and with the country. And frankly, figuring out what the right thing to do is going to be difficult and any answer is going to be controversial. I think both parties could improve here. The Democrats need to go beyond we’ll pull the troops out, and the Republicans need to go beyond we’ll fight until we win. Those can be starting points for debate, but by themselves they’re not really satisfying.

Actually, my favorite politician in this regard is not a Democrat. I’m consistently impressed when I hear senator Richard Lugar talk about Iraq; he’s one of the few politicians of either side who speaks with some depth about the competing interests in that part of the world both in Iraq and it’s neighbors. He feels we should be withdrawing troops and at the same time pushing diplomacy much much harder. If he were a Republican candidate for president, I would consider voting for him.

Joe Biden also has concrete proposals about where to go, pushing in the direction of a partitioned state in a federalist system. I didn’t use to like them, and I’m still not sure I do; it reeks of imposing our solution on the Iraqi’s. I think in the end whatever solution comes out is going to have to come from them. But Biden’s plan at least recognizes some of the reality on the ground, especially with the de-facto ethnic cleansing that’s already occurring.

Finally, I don’t think there’s going to be a “solution” to Iraq we can just apply. I don’t think the next President is going to be able to say, “this is what I’m going to do in Iraq” and then just go and do it; the situation is just far too complex. I think the next administration is going to need to be able to talk to all the parties involved, and do some difficult diplomacy and figure out what to do in response to events and what the other parties say. So I think we need an administration that will be extremely good at foreign relations and talking to other leaders both inside and outside of Iraq.

Any discussion of how to best attain victory in Iraq is going to have to start with a discussion what exactly that means. I discovered this blog by another commenter discussing the possible outcomes and was impressed. http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2007/05/end-game-face-of-victory-in-iraq.html

Rick,
Just noted your link in sitemeter. I am not going to weigh in on this thread, as I am seriously behind the curve and not going to read through all these comments. Plus it is half-time and my Bears are apparently going to try and win this game by a score of 6-3. Maybe 5-3.

I never did post a follow-up as I indicated I would. Still intending too, but I am watching to see what al-Sadr's next move might be. I still think this his ascendancy is the most likely outcome. FWIW my WIP that I never got around to posting, worked up among all the recent questioning of whether Maliki was long for the job:

The interesting question to me, is what happens when the Maliki government falls due to lack of Iraqi parliamentary support. We did install a parliamentary democracy there at the point of a gun, with all the "majority rule" stuff that implies. The Mahdi Army and Moqtada Al Sadr have overwhelming support in the largest majority in Iraq - The Shia. They voted in their new democracy and Maliki is the Prime Minister because he formed a government with the support of the most popular leader of the largest voting block - Moqtada al-Sadar of the Shiites. Democracy in action. So ... unless we want to do undo the Democracy we installed, we are going to reap what we sowed. And, like it or not, what Moqtada al-Sadr thinks about Maliki is more relevant than what you or I or George Bush or Carl Levin or anyone else here thinks. This is what al-Sadr thinks:

On domestic Iraqi politics, Sadr said that Maliki's days as Iraqi leader were coming to a close: "Al-Maliki's government will not survive because he has proven that he will not work with important elements of the Iraqi people ... The prime minister is a tool for the Americans and people see that clearly." "It will probably be the Americans who decide to change him when they realise he has failed. We don't have a democracy here, we have a foreign occupation."

FWIW - from wikipedia:

In 1980, the Saddam Hussein government sentenced al-Maliki to death for his active role in the Dawa party and thereafter he lived in exile, first in Iran and later in Syria. In Syria he headed the party's Jihad Office, a branch responsible for directing activists and guerrillas fighting Saddam Hussein's regime from outside Iraq. He was elected chairman of the Joint Action Committee, a Damascus-based opposition coalition that led to the founding of the Iraqi National Congress, a United States-backed body of opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime which the Dawa Party participated in between 1992 and 1995. Some foreign diplomats, responsible for maintaining links with the Iraqi opposition in Syria before the war, have maintained that al-Maliki was never more than a minor figure in the period before 2003.

So the prime minister of Iraq did not even live in Iraq for 23 years before we went in to present the Iraqi's with the gift of Democracy, and as a side benefit, their Prime Minister Maliki (presumably back-up for first choice Chalabi). Any wonder that he is viewed as a caretaker, and a US proxy by the Iraq majority?

Now - we in the US don’t like the Mahdi Army, and we certainly don’t like their leader Moqtada Al-Sadr. But - They are not “Al Queda”. They are not Baathists or Sadaamites. They are not the people we went into Iraq to fight. They are, In fact, the very Iraqi’s, the exact oppressed Religious sect that we presumably went in to Iraq to free from the yoke of Sadaam Hussein and present the gift of democracy.

It is important to note, that while Americans like to think of al-Sadr as "the enemy", the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Iraqi government, and a majority of the majority Shia in Iraq do not think of him as "the enemy."

Perhaps it is useful to recall that when the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down in 2003 in the middle of what we now call "Sadr City", it was the supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr that we cheered dragging Hussein's head through the street. They were the exact oppressed religious sect we went there to liberate. When Saddam's portrait was defaced, it was a poster of Sadr that went up in in its place. More recently we learned from Michael Totten, that the Mahdi Army is in the process of becoming the Iraqi Army.

Al-Sadr moves the Mahdi Army like pieces on a political chess board, in a game that we seem completely oblivious we are playing. He has been consistently under-estimated by Americans and the American press. We are doing it again now.

As near as I can tell, we are not targeting him or his army. He was part of the government we are supporting, which he left on his own, and may be back. The Iraqi government we defend and al-Sadr are working together. What we are actually doing militarily, is killing his enemies, while he sits on the sideline and his supporters join the Iraqi Army. The same Iraqi army which is supposed to stand up so we can stand down.

This is the follow-up point I wanted to make as a follow-up to the post you linked.

I'm sorry but there is a very serious problem concerning Bush. I thought the example you point out was a diversion but here is a serious problem: See VIDEO: "You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon." The public needs to hear these statements but 60 Minutes did not air them, only including them online. (CBS reporter Scott Pelley omitted them when he conveyed Bush's message to President Ahmadinejad.)

Terry: "ck

If you believe Kerry's explanation you should put on a dunce cap. Kerry got caught making fun of the troops. His explanation was a cover and a stupid one at that. Bush is better educated than Kerry so he obviously wasn't referring to Bush but the young uneducated soldiers who volunteered to fight "Bush's war".'

Really? Terry, I'm speechless. You really are completely biased, so far so that you don't even know Bush was a straight C average fellow who binge drank throughout college. And somehow you are trying to tell me Kerry is not as educated as Bush? When Kerry was in his twenties he was lobbying politicians for change on Capitol Hill, while Bush was snorting and drinking. Come on terry!

And Kerry's comment was so obviously directed at Bush and not the troops that (as Ed put it) only a moron would think differently. Now I'm not trying to make judgments, but you ARE trying to tell me Kerry was publicly trashing the troops education levels in a joke... right? LOL!! Yeah ok - sarcasm

I'm sure Kerry thought that all the cameras and mics around him were a perfect spot to make fun of the troops (he used to be in the military too you know), and I'm sure he felt that was the best way to gain popularity. OR!!! He was making fun of Bush's obvious lack of intelligence, something that IS funny and WON'T hurt him in the polls. It was the direct attempt to manipulate public opinion by people on the right that led to people like you believing he was actually insulting the troops...