4,000 dead Americans

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Andrew Sullivan: Bush adminstration officials will 'be indicted for war crimes'

 

Media coverage of the disclosure of the "torture memo" authored by Bush Justice Department official John C. Yoo has been mostly a deafening silence. But on this morning's Chris Matthews' show, someone finally fired a shot. As we mentioned in this morning's liveblog, credit goes to The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, for taking the opportunity to ensure that this matter got out into the televised discourse somehow.

 

SULLIVAN: The latest revelations on the torture front show the memo from John Yoo...means that Don Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/a...mi_n_95305.html

 

I do think some people will get punished for this, somewhere down the line. But it'll mostly be minor guys. I really can't see rumsfeld indicted.

[Firestarter 0]

Andrew Sullivan

No, seriously.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Andrew Sullivan

No, seriously.

 

This is something we can agree on

[Firestarter 0]

This is something we can agree on

 

Mockery of Andrew Sullivan: the truly bipartisan cause.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

Someone taking Andrew Sullivan seriously makes me want to cry.

 

But whatever, it's from Huffingtonpost anyway.

[Firestarter 0]

Indeed.

[snuffbox 0]

There were some more attacks on Baghdad this weekend. 3 more Americans dead and a few dozen injured. Only 3, though!

[Firestarter 0]

For reference, every five days more black babies alone are murdered than all the volunteers who have been killed so far in Iraq. Yet you liberals are supposedly the party of "civil rights."

 

link

 

Funny way to go about it, is all I can say.

[snuffbox 0]

Yeah, not supporting the idea of limited warfare to achieve nation-building is the same as killing a bunch of "black babies." Totally.

[BorneAgain 0]

Hey at least black babies dying isn't adding too much to the national debt. The conservatives have to give us that at least.

[BorneAgain 0]

Hey at least black babies dying isn't adding to the national debt. The conservatives have to give us that at least.

Good to see you have your priorities in order.

Oh hush, that's not even the most tasteless joke in this thread.

 

 

By the way for those interested, though I don't completely agree with it, here's a recent article on al-Sadr's current role in Iraq.

 

How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra

[SamoaRowe 0]

For reference, every five days more black babies alone are murdered than all the volunteers who have been killed so far in Iraq. Yet you liberals are supposedly the party of "civil rights."

 

link

 

Funny way to go about it, is all I can say.

 

Are liberal politicians performing the abortions themselves against the mothers' wills?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

"But what about an African American woman's right to choose?"

[Vyce 0]

By the way for those interested, though I don't completely agree with it, here's a recent article on al-Sadr's current role in Iraq.

 

How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra

 

These days, things aren't looking so great for Sadr.

[EricMM 0]

We'll see.

 

Doesn't he control Basra, a major oil city?

 

FWIW he needs to be isolated, as radical and as problematic as he is, but if he's managing to fight off the official Iraqi military, I don't think he's exactly weak right now.

[snuffbox 0]

Few more years, few more trillion, he'll be outta there!

[NoCalMike 0]

Few more years, few more trillion, he'll be outta there!

 

AKA will be bought off.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Body count's up to 4018 now.

[Vyce 0]

We'll see.

 

Doesn't he control Basra, a major oil city?

 

FWIW he needs to be isolated, as radical and as problematic as he is, but if he's managing to fight off the official Iraqi military, I don't think he's exactly weak right now.

 

Eric, the reason he keeps calling for a ceasefire is not because he thinks it's a cute little idea, it's because he practically HAS to sue for peace if he wants to continue to hold what he has left. He himself can't press the issue beyond that, because the support isn't there. The Iraqi people themselves are pretty much fed up with the bullshit, because they know he's funded largely by Iran, and Iraqis are beyond tired of foreign-funded extremists within their borders - it's why Al-Qaeda in Iraq has become a failure. In Sadr's case, even Shi'ites are about ready to wash their hands of him.

 

However, I will grant you that this exposes he Iraqi military as being not-quite-ready-for-primetime players, but still, the fact that the Iraqi military is beginning to engage some of its internal threats and the continued marginalization of Sadr and his army IS actual positive progress, which I know some people don't want to face as reality, but there it is. It continues to underscore the need for American troops in the region for the forseeable future, a position, might I remind you, that Barack Obama's own advisers are now acknowledging is a necessity.

 

But this is a far more deft play by Maliki than people have, or likely will, given him credit for. While the Iraqi military action against Sadr may have left a lot to be desired, Maliki has seemingly destroyed a significant portion of Sadr's political authority.

[BorneAgain 0]

A great deal of al-Sadr's power is largely more symbolic these days than anything else.

 

His greatest skill just seems to be keeping himself in the public eye during big moments (Saddam's execution, recent conflict with the Iraqi military, the cease-fire).

[Vyce 0]

I wrote out that response just an hour or so ago, and lo and behold, what gets published, but this article where Sadr offers to disband his army.

 

If "the clerics ask me to", granted, but still, my earlier point stands: Sadr isn't in a position of strength, here, gents. He's holding on by his fingernails at this point.

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, gents, we got him now. Sure, it takes a few more years and a hell of a lot more money, but this proves it, limited warfare DOES WORK. Barry Goldwater can suck a dick.

[EricMM 0]

Vyce, we will certainly see.

 

When Malaki can not beat him down straight away you know he has some sort of power. AND when he has to keep pushing back the deadline of his demands... it doesn't make him look good.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

 

 

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure"

 

 

Only 61%?

[NoCalMike 0]

Maybe this is why Al-Sadr's support is diminishing....

 

US troops pay Iraqi warlords for loyalty: Report

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/T...how/2438353.cms

NEW YORK: The US military is paying tribal leaders in Iraq to secure their loyalty and ensure peace, but critics contend empowering regional strongmen is creating a warlord state with tribal and religious leaders operating increasingly independent and often unconstitutionally, a media report said on Monday.

 

The US military has discovered too late that Iraq's tangled network of tribal leaders is a major key to security, the upcoming issue of Newsweek says. Over the past one year, "government from the bottom up" has become one of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's favourite catchphrases, it adds.

 

As violence has declined in Sunni enclaves like Ramadi and Fallujah in recent months, the US commanders have tried to replicate the apparent success of the region's Anbar Salvation Council elsewhere, the report notes.

 

Last summer US commanders spent millions of dollars on "concerned local citizens" programmes - essentially paying off tribal sheiks to keep their followers from planting roadside bombs, Newsweek reported.

 

In Tikrit's Salah Ad Din province, the Army has spent more than USD five million to buy the loyalty of 26 different sheiks, it adds.

 

With Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki government, weaker than ever, unable to provide basic services even to Baghdad power brokers in the provinces are enjoying something of a renaissance.

 

Giving the example of Gen Qais Hamza Aboud, the local police chief in the mostly Shiite city of Hillah, about 85 km south of Baghdad, the magazine says, a former fighter pilot in Saddam's Air Force, Qais is now probably the most powerful individual in Babil province -- more influential than either the governor or local Iraqi Army commanders.

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

This article is a little dated and we have already seen over the last month or so what happens when the payoff money starts running dry.

 

[Vyce 0]

Vyce, we will certainly see.

 

When Malaki can not beat him down straight away you know he has some sort of power. AND when he has to keep pushing back the deadline of his demands... it doesn't make him look good.

 

I want to thank you, Eric, for at least expressing cautious optimism, unlike your counterparts here, who don't seem to want to hear any sort of news of positive progress.

[snuffbox 0]

Or, after more than five years of watching our leadership be consistently and unrelentingly WRONG on every facet of a wholly needless war, some people might have a hard time keeping the faith that the law of averages will come into play and something good will happen. Thanks for bringing the retard canards, though!

[SuperJerk 0]

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

 

 

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure"

 

 

Only 61%?

It's not fair to rank someone's presidency before it is over.

[NoCalMike 0]

Vyce, we will certainly see.

 

When Malaki can not beat him down straight away you know he has some sort of power. AND when he has to keep pushing back the deadline of his demands... it doesn't make him look good.

 

I want to thank you, Eric, for at least expressing cautious optimism, unlike your counterparts here, who don't seem to want to hear any sort of news of positive progress.

 

I don't think it is THAT so much as it is the fact that when we hear someone say "the surge is working" we decide to do a little research and we find evidence that points to another conclusion.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that "nothing positive" is happening in Iraq, however the point trying to be made is that the policy itself is the problem. I am sure Enron did some positive things during it's years in business but the policy of price-gouging and ripping people off was bad POLICY and that was the bigger issue.

 

Surely, the troops in Iraq are doing some good things working under the chain of command umbrella that is the Administrations Iraq War policy, but that doesn't change the fact that the strategy and/or policy of how we are going about this whole thing is pretty backwards and wrong.

[godthedog 0]

where exactly does this impulse to name best and worst presidents in ranking order come from? this works for things like music, where you use the list as a function of your own taste and expertise, as your list is saying something about you as a person, and part of the fun is the total absence of standards...but somehow this listing of presidents is supposed to prove something? despite the vast differences in circumstances, goals, and overall picture, which are by nature unquantifiable? that's a parlor game, that's not real history.