Friday, April 06, 2007

Fake Scandal

The WSJ, FAUX News, Cheney, Limbaugh and many of the other right-wing psychos have created a fake scandal over Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. Joe Klein of TIME pushes back against their bullshit:

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, with typical judiciousness, gets the Pelosi trip quite wrong. First, George Logan was not a member of the Congress when he made his "pacifist" trip to France. (He was elected to the Senate three years later, in 1801.) Second, Pelosi did not make the trip to negotiate with Assad, but to talk with him. Third, this is not a "wartime" situation--in fact, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Syria. Fourth, as others have noted, numerous Republican members of Congress have gone to speak with Assad. In fact, it was a Republican, Chris Shays, who first told me that I should go over and interview Assad. Fifth, the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal. (Do you think CNN would repeatedly call itself the best political team on television if it actually was?)

Finally, what is the real scandal here: that Pelosi spoke with Assad or that the Bush Administration won't?...Or, as I reported last week, that the Bush Administration won't even let the Israelis talk to Assad?

The media coverage of the story has really been bad. I have both called and emailed CNN daily about the way they've covered the story (they've basically read straight from the RNC talking points.)

Each time I've communicated with CNN, I've noted how Chris Matthews, David Shuster, Keith Olbermann and a bunch of other reporters and commentators on MSNBC have managed to get the story right (Yes, Pelosi visited Assad...and three Republicans visited Assad the day before she did at the White House's behest!!!)

I have then noted how shitty CNN's news coverage has been in general the last few years and wondered "if that's why MSNBC's ratings are up while CNN's are in the toilet."

I also called CNN's news tip hotline to let them know about the Republicans visiting Syria the day before Pelosi did. (I thought maybe the reporters at CNN might want to know about this news if they ever get their heads out of their asses to listen to the tip hotline...)

Klein's right - if CNN was the "best political team on television," they wouldn't need to keep repeating it.

Comments:
reality, the best strategy for handling Syria is to send a barrage of cruise missiles into the government offices of Damascus to eliminate assad and his henchmen. The ayatollahs and amhadinejad would get the message.
 
That's essentially what they did to Saddam. How'd that policy work out?
 
reality, you wrote:

"That's essentially what they did to Saddam. How'd that policy work out?"

I wasn't suggesting any follow-up effort to jump-start democracy. I'm only advocating the removal of the assad regime. After that, the Iranians can swarm in.

As for how the saddam removal worked out, well, as you know it took only three weeks and was a huge success. The removal of the assad regime would take only a few hours and would require nothing more than a barrage of cruise missiles.

Meanwhile, I believe Iran is on the verge of internal political chaos. The demise of Syrian leadership would put a hole in the Iranian ship that would sink it.
 
The removal of Saddam was "a huge success?"

5 years into the war the United States is escalating its troop presence (Rummy said it would be a matter of weeks or months before we would be out of there), U.S. casualties are rising (3,270+), the costs of the war are astronomical (Rummy and Wolfie said the war would pay for itself - that was $600 billion dollars ago), the military is stretched to the breaking point (General McCaffrey says, TIME chronicles it this week in their magazine, and MSNBC reports that 12,000 National Guards troops are going to be sent back to Iraq for an unprecedented second overseas tour of duty.)

And what has been accomplished? Iran is stronger as a result of Saddam's demise and the U.S.'s weakness (and make no mistake, Iran and the rest of the world have now seen just what limits there are to U.S. power), the Sunni/Shia conflict threatens to spread beyond Iraq, Iraq will be a murderous mess for years to come and the United States has spent precious lives and resources on an ill-conceived war that the administration concocted reasons for (WMD's? Not so much. Al Qaeda ties? Not so much - so says the Pentagon this week)

If that's your view of "success," I guess we have different viewpoints.
 
reality, you seem to think that a multi-part military operation is a one act show.

The toppling of saddam's government was step one. That took three weeks. It was such a breeze that our military leaders were surprised. Not even the best-case scenario allowed for such a swift defeat of the entire Iraqi military machine.

Stage two began after stage one was completed. That's the part that hasn't gone so well. Changing the always-failing muslim culture has been tough. I doubt muslims possess the sense of hope and possibility that infuses western optimism. It appears that an islamic education and the muslim life wrings out every drop of the can-do spirit that has delivered staggering prosperity to the west.

That aside, Iran may well be on the brink. If all it takes to push the country over the edge is a little bombing run or missile barrage from the US, well, what the heck.

But the morons in charge are wrecking the place with no help at all. Despite record oil prices, Iran's oil revenue has been FALLING for the last few years. Why? Because Iranian muslims can't do anything right. Their only significant industry is oil. But because they lack the competence to maintain and upgrade their fields, production is declining. OA solid boycott of Iran by the EU would bring down the country in less than six months.

It costs a lot more than Iran brings in to fund terrorist operations in Syria and Lebanon, send arms to Iraq and attempt to satisfy every social demand at home in Iran. Psycho nut-job ahmadinejad is doing his best to lead the country off an economic cliff. Eventually his juvenile actions will destroy the country, but we could hasten the day with very little effort.

You wrote:

"...and make no mistake, Iran and the rest of the world have now seen just what limits there are to U.S. power..."

Utter nonsense. They haven't had the slightest taste of the upper limits of US military power. And they're playing the game to avoid that checkmating experience. If Iran were foolish enough to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran's days as an independent nation would end. Western forces would kill its leadership, destroy its military and seize its oil fields. End of story.

Instead, Iran tests US and UK responses by kidnapping 15 members of the UK navy. Ooohhh. Very bold.
 
What you call the first part of the "war" took three weeks because Saddam's Republican Guard melted away into the populace and became the insurgency. Too bad the brilliant minds in the Pentagon and the Bush administration couldn't see that coming, huh? You know, a long insurgency that would set off a bitter sectarian war between Shia and Sunni?

But they didn't see any of that coming. In fact, Rummy told us the war would be over in a few weeks or months at most. Bush declared Mission Accomplished in May of 2003 and Dick Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes in 2004 - they were all wrong.

You are foolish to think there are no limits to U.S. power. A general like Barry McCaffrey will tell you EXACTLY what the limits of U.S. power are in terms of manpower, resources, and will. He says we're at the overstretched point now. That's why the Pentagon changed the rules about sending National Guardsmen overseas for more than one tour of duty. In order to carry out Bush's escalation, they had to change the rules and get more bodies. That's what the stop loss measures are all about. Read McCaffrey's recent report on the state of Iraq for where things stand.

One more thing that relates to this discussion: Remember when I asked you a while back why you didn't put your money where your mouth is and join up for the Iraq war? And you said you tried, but they told you you were too old? Well, they're taking people up to the age of 42 now and they desperately need live bodies. Why don't you try to sign up again? I bet you're younger than 42. And they're taking people with autism and prison records and addiction problems, so I can't see why they wouldn't take you.

This way, you can live blog how well the five year old war is going. And then continue to live blog how well the war is going each additional time they send you over there (some marines and soldiers are on their third deployments to Iraq). And maybe if you're really lucky, they'll use you for the war with Iran too!
 
reality, you wrote:

"In fact, Rummy told us the war would be over in a few weeks or months at most."

No timetables were ever reported. Period. But it wasn't hard to infer that military opinion estimated Phase One -- the defeat of saddam's military -- at well under a year. The big surprise was how fast saddam's forces crumbled. There wasn't even time to assess the larger, long-term picture because Phase Two -- the jump-start of democracy -- was begun well ahead of the time assumed by our Best-Case Scenario.

You wrote:

"Bush declared Mission Accomplished in May of 2003..."

Absolutely accurate. Phase One -- the defeat of saddam's military -- was complete.

You added:

"...and Dick Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes in 2004..."

If he said what you claim, he was wrong. Most assessments of the enemies are wrong. Cheney hardly broke new ground in this department. See WWII for insanely wrong comments by our leaders if you want more.

You claimed:

"You are foolish to think there are no limits to U.S. power. A general like Barry McCaffrey will tell you EXACTLY what the limits of U.S. power are in terms of manpower, resources, and will."

You're changing the subject. If you want to discuss the limits of US military manpower, that's one subject. But when you bring up the generic top of US military power, the subject includes nuclear weaponry. With nuclear weapons of all sizes in our arsenal, there is no chance we've come anywhere near tapping our full military power in the current war.

You wrote:

"Remember when I asked you a while back why you didn't put your money where your mouth is and join up for the Iraq war? And you said you tried, but they told you you were too old? Well, they're taking people up to the age of 42 now and they desperately need live bodies. Why don't you try to sign up again? I bet you're younger than 42."

At the time I spoke to the Army recruiter -- last summer -- the upper age limit for enlistments was 42. I happen to look younger than my age, but I was over 42 last summer and I am still over 42 today.

You added:

"And they're taking people with autism and prison records and addiction problems, so I can't see why they wouldn't take you."

Why? I'm not autistic, I have no prison record and no addiction problems. Due to my lack of those qualifying attributes, I'm not a good choice these days.

Maybe I'll try again and remind the Army of my engineering degree when I drop by. But quite honestly, aging is real. I can't run long distances anymore. Knee problem, not lack of lung power. Aside from running, basic training poses no obvious obstacles.

As an alternative, I'm still considering jobs with Halliburton in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
No_slappz, you wrote:

No timetables were ever reported. Period.

Rumsfeld said before the war:

"The war could last 6 days, 6 weeks but I doubt 6 months."

Now we're five years in to the war. And make no mistake, it is STILL a war. Men and women are dying. 35 American military personnel have been killed so far this month (and it's only April 8th.) 6 Brits have been killed. You can play word games and call it a phase two insurgency or a police action or an occupation or whatever, but the point is that Rummy and Wolfie and Cheney and the rest sold this war to the American people as a clean, quick action. The reality is, it has been neither.

Cheney said the following to Larry King on May 31st, 2005 (sorry, I said he said it in 2004 - but actually the fact that Cheney said it in 2005 makes it even worse since by then even Bush had started to ratchet down the optimistic rhetoric):

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

There you go - "last throes, things are getting better, the level of activity we see today from a military standpoint will clearly decline..."

Nearly two years later, the level of activity has ratcheted up, Iraqi casualties are up, U.S military casualties are up, the places in Iraq that were supposedly pacified (like Tal Afar, Mosul and Fallujah) continue to be in various states of distress, and the admin has been forced to try and escalate the war on the cheap and on the sly because the American public has long passed the time when they would go for an escalation up front. There was a time when Americans probably would have gone for that, but at the point in time (around late 2003/early 2004) when the insurgency was first getting off the ground, the administration wouldn't even admit there was an insurgency.

I stand by my "limits to American power" statement. We are currently tied down in two wars. The army is so overstretched that many soldiers have done 3 and 4 overseas tours and the National Guard has been called up for an unprecedented second overseas tour. When regular army soldiers go back overseas, they no longer get a full year off because the Pentagon does not have enough bodies. General Peter Pace is so concerned about the state of readiness of the army and the equipment that he reported to Congress this year that he believes there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis. The year before, Pace reported there was a moderate risk that the U.S. wouldn't be able to respond to a crisis. Maybe you know more about military affairs than Pace or McCaffrey, but when it comes down to it, I'll trust their judgment on the matter.
 
Pace and McCaffrey are Pollyannas. We already can't respond to the situation in Afghanistan, to say nothing about Somalia and a hot spot or two in West Africa. North Korea could take over the whole peninsula for the cost of marching south through it, unless the Australians could be persuaded to mount a defense.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?