Video: Bush antagonizes the left on “60 Minutes”

posted at 10:35 pm on January 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

Comedy gold tonight on CBS as the president hints that he’s being scapegoated by his critics; that the problem with Iraqis is that they’re insufficiently grateful; and that he’s a “flexible, open-minded person” — with an oblique jab at Clinton’s legacy obsession thrown in for good measure. The soundbite tomorrow, though, will be the part where he says he has the authority to surge no matter what Congress does. That’s not quite true: if they passed an amendment to the original Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq freezing the troop numbers at the current levels, that would (arguably) make any surge deployment orders unconstitutional. They’d need 60 votes to do that, though, as the Republicans would surely filibuster it. And even if they had the votes, they don’t have the stones.

Also ominous: his noncommittal answer to the question of whether Sadr is an enemy of the United States. There’s always a risk of reading too much into presidential statements, but I took it to mean we won’t be targeting him if he doesn’t target us. Which is exactly what Sadr wants to hear.

His counterfactual about how Saddam would have responded to Iran’s drive for nukes is on the money, though.

Exit question: Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks? Is our intel in Iraq so poor now that the CIA couldn’t get its own copy from the Iraqi government?

Update: Sunni jihadis and Shiite militias are half the problem. The other half is the Iraqi government, which is now so distrusted by the American military that the Baghdad operation is being organized with a novel command structure — including a “crisis counsel” comprised of Maliki, Iraqi ministers, and Gen. Petraeus in supreme command of the Iraqi military and Iraqi generals being paired with American babysitters — to make sure Sunni and Shiite commanders don’t go renegade. Quote:

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad closely involved in negotiations over the plan, expressing frustration. “We are being played like a pawn.”…

A major worry among the Americans is that their own efforts to clear areas of the city will be used by militia groups, or even by the Shiite-dominated government forces, as an opening to grab territory and to seed the newly cleared area with their own allies. The concern centers on both Sunni and Shiite armed groups, but particularly on the Shiites. “We are doing their bidding unknowingly,” one American military official said.

“You go clean the area, but then it’s backfilled by JAM,” he said, in a reference to the Mahdi Army, the militia of the renegade Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. “That’s the heart of the problem.”

Update: Speaking of executions, the two men found guilty with Saddam have now been hanged.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks? Is our intel in Iraq so poor now that the CIA couldn’t get its own copy from the Iraqi government?

Why go through all that red tape when the world moves so much quicker? You can get things on youtube before they even happen now. Maybe the president just couldn’t wait to see it. Or maybe he didn’t want to read a NYT headline: Bush Asks Iraqi’s for Saddam Death Video

thelinyguy on January 14, 2007 at 10:56 PM

I think that Iraq didnt want any US personel at the execution hence the vids came from the Shiia themselves and the internet was the fastest way.

Bush seems to be pushing on the nuclear issue (ie I dont care what the congress wants on Iraq) Is interesting in that it pushes forth a confrontation.

Also Bush sees himself as a lame duck. Iraq for good or bad is his legacy and I think he realizes that if he succeeds in Iraq he will have a good legacy.

Not matter if he wins or loses in Iraq it is also a win or loss for this country. in 2009 will be a new president but the Iraq situation will still be there even when Bush is gone.

It will be for better or worse for America.

William Amos on January 14, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Or maybe he didn’t want to read a NYT headline: Bush Asks Iraqi’s for Saddam Death Video

Along with leftist wet dreams about the president eating a pretzel while he watched it.

lorien1973 on January 14, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Exit question:

It’s a misdirection … and easier, as no one will question where the white house copy of the vid came from.

shooter on January 14, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Exit question: Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks? Is our intel in Iraq so poor now that the CIA couldn’t get its own copy from the Iraqi government?

I did not get the impression from the interview that President Bush was limited to the video on the Internet. Agreed that he said that is where he watched part of it. That does not exclude his access to other sources.

You are most likely not the only one who would be interested in the ability of the CIA in Iraq to acquire information and most likely not the only one to not receive the answer to that question.

News2Use on January 14, 2007 at 11:07 PM

If Dems did this…

passed an amendment to the original Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq freezing the troop numbers at the current levels

then they are ‘staying the course’, aren’t they? Which is not what they want to be accused of.

Melba Toast on January 14, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Exit question: Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks? Is our intel in Iraq so poor now that the CIA couldn’t get its own copy from the Iraqi government?

Perhaps it was an operative who made the video and put it out there. Just a thought.

On the other hand, there is much we are not told. For proof of this, one can reference MEMRI among many other sources. No one single source is 100% – however, from a fair sampling of several sides of the arguments, intelligent people can usually reason the truth by reading between the lines and through the smoke.

Iraq-wise, the government is digging itself into a hole. Unfortunately it will be our warfighters who are thrown into the hole instead of the perfumed princes who think nothing of sending them there.

Again, what is good for business (and conversely one’s business partners) is good for corporate (political) America.

And that is what will ultimately be done.

As usual, we pay the price.

Emmett J. on January 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM

If anything the dems dont want to stop bush. This gives them their main issue for 2008. They want it all and they hope Bush will fail.

The ones to watch are the nutroots. They will gnash and bash anyone including democrats for doing nothing.

William Amos on January 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Bush said (paraphrasing)- People that want to cut off the funding owe it to the American people to explain why their plan will succeed.
Exactly.

Today on MTP, Tim Russert asked Hagel about the bloodbath that could occur in Iraq if we left. Hagel’s answer was that he doesn’t want that, nobody wants that. That’s why his plan will succeed- he wants it to. It is so easy when you aren’t Bush.

MayBee on January 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

God Bless George W. Bush

Griz on January 14, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Was W really supposed to say “Tell Mookie we’ll pick him up Wednesday”? If I were him I’d let it be a surprise.

bdfaith on January 14, 2007 at 11:34 PM

He looked good for a change.

Things were more stabile under saddam. That doesn’t mean things were better. Instabile freedom is better than stabile tyranny.

Chuck on January 14, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Exit question: Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks?

I heard nothing that indicated that President Bush was forced to watch the hanging on the internet. If anything I got the impression that he hesitantly watched part of it with “someone” and took the moral highroad by not watching it in it’s entirety.

Guardian on January 14, 2007 at 11:57 PM

I won’t watch Saddam hang either.

William

William2006 on January 15, 2007 at 12:04 AM

And even if they had the votes, they don’t have the stones.

They do, but they’re made of sand.

It’s such a blessing the President’s are made of diamond. It’s also great that he’s not prone to too much self-analysis and -glorification.

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 12:06 AM

When the President says he didn’t want to watch him hanging in the gallows, I firmly believe him, and I see a side in Bush that a lot of people may ignore. He’s not interested in a blood lust. He wasn’t hyped up to see Saddam Hussein die. He wanted Iraq liberated. He wanted WMD’s out of the Middle East. He wants a free Iraq.

It’s not about soundbytes for Bush. It’s about feelings, and reality.

Vincenzo on January 15, 2007 at 12:24 AM

I heard nothing that indicated that President Bush was forced to watch the hanging on the internet. If anything I got the impression that he hesitantly watched part of it with “someone” and took the moral highroad by not watching it in it’s entirety.

Guardian and William; What’s the moral high ground in NOT watching the hanging? It, the hanging, is a grim reminder of our own mortality and that, though justice may be slow this side of heaven, there is justice.

Military.com is sporting a video of a group of jihadists who were going to film a hit against American forces. In a reversal of fortune the jihadists are filming when they themselves are engaged by American forces. All of them are killed in seconds including the camera man. For the record, the camera man was a combatant. Again, the video is a grim reminder of the realities of the enemy that all of christendom faces.

Mojave Mark on January 15, 2007 at 12:24 AM

I appreciate that the President follows his convictions and beliefs and isn’t swayed by public opinion, ala Bubba. The irony is that if he did make policy according to polls to help ensure his legacy, the worse his legacy would be. Those Presidents with lasting legacies are those who stay true to their convictions in the face of adversity. Depending on how Iraq ends up, President Bush will have a legacy, one way or another. But he will have a legacy. Meanwhile, Bubba will sink into the mediocrity of history because he never took a risky stand. (He did enjoy risky sex though. Sorry I couldn’t resist.)

Mallard T. Drake on January 15, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Mallard T. Drake, what are you writing about? Remember that he said, finger pointed at all of us, “A never had sex with that women…”

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Isn’t anyone else really confused about what he’s trying to say about Democrats and putting a plan forward?

Greg Tinti on January 15, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Is anyone… I meant.

Greg Tinti on January 15, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Ah, ‘women’ or ‘woman’, what’s the difference in this case anyway?

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 12:46 AM

The vide is no longer available.

I guess the leftists at Youtube took it down.

georgej on January 15, 2007 at 12:46 AM

I’m going to have to disagree with our benevolent pundit on the constitutionality of war. The Constitution is very clear on what branch of the government has war making authority, that branch being the executive. The powers the document gives the legislative is oversight and the purse strings. Now, I am aware of the power usurpation of congress over the decades, War-Powers act and Bolend Amendments and so forth. However, I don’t believe these laws have met or do meet the constitutional muster. Furthermore they have never been challenged. The Commander-in-Chief has to make this call and congress can decide to fund it or not fund it. With the current make up of the court, it would be a 5-4 decision either way. Kennedy would be the swing vote. To surge or not to surge, this is the question for the president. To fund or not to fund, this is the question for the congress………….

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 12:56 AM

georgej on January 15, 2007 at 12:46 AM

George, try again – it works just fine. Regards,

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Mallard T. Drake, what are you writing about? Remember that he said, finger pointed at all of us, “A never had sex with that women…”

The stains never lie…..

Mallard T. Drake on January 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM

I agree, it’s hard to read his comments on Sadr. Just like his past comments about Putin. I have to assume he’s being deliberately misleading. At least I hope so.

reaganaut on January 15, 2007 at 1:19 AM

did i download a virus or is hotair littered with weird Windows Live links?

paranoid on January 15, 2007 at 3:14 AM

A sting on Clinton. Nice.

Black Adam on January 15, 2007 at 3:21 AM

did i download a virus or is hotair littered with weird Windows Live links?

I’m getting the same thing…the double-underline “windows live” search video links…what is that?

JetBoy on January 15, 2007 at 4:46 AM

“George, try again – it works just fine. Regards,”

Thanks, Entelechy. I just tried it and it now works.

georgej on January 15, 2007 at 6:57 AM

I know this is waaaaaaay of topic but Charlie Rangle (dem) just said on Fox that Saddam was “lynched”.

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Bush said (paraphrasing)- People that want to cut off the funding owe it to the American people to explain why their plan will succeed.
Exactly.

MayBee on January 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

This is like cracking open an egg and then turning to the person who told you not to do it and asking them what their plan is to put it back.

Bush’s plan hinges on the Iraqis coming through on their promises. Anyone who considers this with a cold eye realizes how foolish this is. Maliki is using us to establish a Shiite government, and we’ll be lucky if we don’t get caught up in ethnic cleansing.

God help us all.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM

“I am not worried about my legacy.” Good one!

The sanctimonious attitude of this interviewer almost makes this unwatchable. Bush’s handling of this type of creep just makes me admire him more. I personally would have said to this guy, “Enough with the attitude chief. We ALL get it, I am the bady guy. Speak to me with respect or get out of my house.”

I do not agree with Bush on immigration and other issues, but I admire him.

CrimsonFisted on January 15, 2007 at 9:38 AM

I know this is waaaaaaay of topic but Charlie Rangle (dem) just said on Fox that Saddam was “lynched”.

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Well he was, wasn’t he?

JaHerer22 on January 15, 2007 at 9:42 AM

did i download a virus or is hotair littered with weird Windows Live links?

It is crap Ad-ware added in the Blog by the Blog owners and with their permission. Very annoying.

Last night was the 1st time I have watch CBS, other than sports, in at least 5 years. The 60 minutes interviewer of the President was rude and so biased in his approach and wording, he clearly showed his disdain for the war and the President. Andrea Mitchel were you watching ?

Any how, who ever hit the interviewer in the face with a shovel did not do a good enough job. CBS sucks as usual.

Wade on January 15, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Well he was, wasn’t he?

JaHerer22 on January 15, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Well only on style points….what is more interesting is the report of the Maliki government hanging two Saddam (Sunni) creeps. The one fellow was hanged and oddly, his head fell off. Imagine that.

Sunnis all upset, yada, yada, yada.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:47 AM

This is like cracking open an egg and then turning to the person who told you not to do it and asking them what their plan is to put it back.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Pithy.

… we’ll be lucky if we don’t get caught up in ethnic cleansing.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Honora, would you clarify what you mean by “caught up” please?

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 9:50 AM

The sanctimonious attitude of this interviewer almost makes this unwatchable. Bush’s handling of this type of creep just makes me admire him more. I personally would have said to this guy, “Enough with the attitude chief. We ALL get it, I am the bady guy. Speak to me with respect or get out of my house.”

He should have tossed the interviewer out on his ass then said “You are the 1st and next will be the illegal aliens out of this Country” Adiós A__wipe”

Wade on January 15, 2007 at 9:51 AM

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Wait a minute.

The dems only suggestion that comes close to being a “plan” for success in Iraq is that the Iraqi’s have to stand up for themselves. They also have admitted that we cannot have a failure in Iraq and that Bush has to have a different strategy. (which is a devious use of words. Strategy is an overall goal. The GOAL/STRATEGY in Iraq is an Iraq that can defend, sustain, and govern itself. And be a partner in the war on terror. THAT is where Bush is “staying the course”, as well he should be. The TACTICS to achieve that goal have changed. The new tactic is that the Iraqis are going after the militias. Going after the militias has never been a part of the plan until now, and that is why it is NEW. To change strategy means to take a different course than winning in Iraq. The only option left is losing, which by the dems admission is unacceptable.)

Well anyone who has ever had management training will tell you that after training your students in certain skill sets, they must have practicle application of those newly aquired skills. When they begin using the skills in real life situations, you DO NOT just turn them loose. You put them in a situation that minumizes the damage if they fail. That is the role our troops will play in this new tactic in Iraq.

The moonbats are talking out both sides of their mouths.

We do have a new tactic.
We cannot just turn the Iraqi’s loose (which the dems want) because if they fail, WE fail (which the dems SAY they don’t want) and that is unacceptable.
The Bush and Iraqi plan is to go after all militias, Shiite and Sunni alike. How does that translate into a Shiite government? Added to that is the FACT that ALL ethnicities ARE represented in their government RIGHT NOW!

A COLD EYE!? You mean a moonbat eye that only see’s that which supports it’s desired outcome in Iraq….A humiliating loss for George Bush! And they couldn’t care less if that damages this country or puts our troops in greater danger! All for what? So they can win election in 2008!

Honora, your comments are completely misguided.

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Someone wrote

we’ll be lucky if we don’t get caught up in ethnic cleansing…

I love how these people on the sidelines drop these little dirty bombs. Pol Pot, Cambodia the left wing poster boy is honored by most of the left as being a liberator. and they worry about luck.

right2bright on January 15, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Honora, would you clarify what you mean by “caught up” please?

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 9:50 AM

If the Maliki govt does not confront the illegal Shiite militias (who are killing Sunnis, which is a big part of the surge plan, and at the same time we continue and expand our support of the Maliki gov’t, yeah I say we have some culpability.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Should read: If the Malike govt does not confront the illegal Shiite militias (who are killing Sunnis)

Oh punctuation. Eats, shoots and leaves

honora on January 15, 2007 at 10:16 AM

The Bush and Iraqi plan is to go after all militias, Shiite and Sunni alike. How does that translate into a Shiite government? Added to that is the FACT that ALL ethnicities ARE represented in their government RIGHT NOW!
Honora, your comments are completely misguided.

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Really? Care to hazard a guess as to why Sadr walks around a free man?

honora on January 15, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Honora, you just said that killing Sunnis is a big part of the surge plan. You are a better writer than this so I am not going to attack you. I ask again, please clarify.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Honora, you just said that killing Sunnis is a big part of the surge plan. You are a better writer than this so I am not going to attack you. I ask again, please clarify.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Sorry RB, thought I corrected it above, bad sentence construction anyway. The Maliki gov’t confronting the Shiite militias is a big part of the plan. Duh…

honora on January 15, 2007 at 10:23 AM

The body language on that still alone tells it all.

seejanemom on January 15, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Honora, I acknowledge that you did correct, I saw it after I posted. Punctuation happens! :)

Yes, it appears that the Maliki gov’t has agreed to confront the Shiite militias. But you said

“…we’ll be lucky if we don’t get caught up in ethnic cleansing.”

So who is “WE” and what do you mean by “caught up”? How does the Iraqi gov’t confronting native insurgency equate to ethnic cleansing?

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM

If you describe everything that can go wrong, eventually you are right. People sit at their computers and pick apart every plan. “We cannot stay the course”, the president changes course, and it is wrong. It reminds me of the palm reader or the con person who reads the future, they make so many predictions, that one is bound to be correct. Point out where they are wrong and they hide. Every president makes foolish decisions, and great decisions. All we have to do is look back in history. The tough part is looking forward.
Remember, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, big mistake…Reagan calling to “take down that wall” also recorded, at the time, a big mistake. If we were politically 100% supportive of our efforts in Iraq, the problem would have been resolved by now. The two confrontation in our lifetime giving us the most trouble, was not the massive wars but the two that we allowed partisan politics to influence our decisions. I do not remember this angst when Clinton launched his attacks (or when Kennedy bungled “bay of pigs”). The world sees this chasm, and it manipulates to create further cleavage. When we stand together, we win. We will never win a war where half of congress is denegrating the other half. We will never win a war fought in the public. We will never win a war unless the president is given support. Even ex-presidents who are alive are attacking the president publicly. Almost unheard of previously. The anger of the left, the calling of death to Bush, death to Condi, death to Cheney, et.al. And the left supports it. They defend the people who say it, they are part of the party who say it, they embrace the party who promotes it.

right2bright on January 15, 2007 at 11:00 AM

So who is “WE” and what do you mean by “caught up”? How does the Iraqi gov’t confronting native insurgency equate to ethnic cleansing?

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM

If the govt is in effect a Shiite govt, dancing to the tune of Sadr et al, which I maintain is a reasonable argument, and that same govt looks the other way when the Shiite militias kill Sunnis, that to me is ethnic cleansing.

We are now telling Maliki he needs to put a stop to this and we, for our part, will increase our forces to allow his govt breathing room. If they renege and the killing continues while we are propping up the Maliki govt, that is the problem.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Exit question: Why was the president of the United States forced to watch video of the execution on the Internet with the rest of us schmucks? Is our intel in Iraq so poor now that the CIA couldn’t get its own copy from the Iraqi government?

He was just watching the tube, lonelygirl15, brookers, reruns of Katrina… and suddenly he stumbled on the hanging vid. It doesn’t get any better.

See it as he saw it here…

RalphyBoy on January 15, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Really? Care to hazard a guess as to why Sadr walks around a free man?

honora on January 15, 2007 at 10:18 AM

That has nothing to do with the duely elected officials that represent all ethicities. Sadr is an annomaly that will be dealt with very soon. You are trying to simplify the situation in Iraq with only the points you agree with.

For the umpteenth time, go to: http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ and incorporate the FACTS listing the many, many successes in Iraq into your “reasoning” and you will see just how completely wrong headed your biased liberal rants are viewed by we reasoned persons.

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 11:15 AM

If the govt is in effect a Shiite govt, dancing to the tune of Sadr et al, which I maintain is a reasonable argument, and that same govt looks the other way when the Shiite militias kill Sunnis, that to me is ethnic cleansing.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 11:01 AM

As csdeven pointed out, ALL ethnicities ARE represented in their government RIGHT NOW! csdeven is correct. Shiite power may be lopsided, but the Sunnis as I recall originally boycotted the new government. Saying that the Iraqi government is in effect a Shiite government might be a bit of hyperbole, much like saying that (before the 2006 elections), the US government was in effect a Republican government. As if the Democrats in their former minority status did not enjoy a significant amount of power and influence.

Maliki may indeed be conniving to make his gov’t Shiite, but it’s up to the Sunni and Kurdish minorities to work out their own countermeasures. The government, however flawed to our eyes, is sovereign – not a puppet. We can pressure, cajole, advise, etc., but we can’t force them to do anything.

But that’s tangential to the topic I really wanted to challenge you on: Getting caught up in ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is, in my opinion, a synonym for genocide, and I read your comment as imagining that We (and by this you must mean our troops) will either get caught in the crossfire as genocide occurs, or at worst, will participate in it.

And because I interpreted your comment to be a tad accusatory, I’m going to ask you a third time to clarify what you meant.

Your response about the possibility of Maliki reneging on his promise to confront Sadr, et. al., does not suffice.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Messed up that quote. Forgive me. *sigh*

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM

When Sadr is gone, the liberals will find another and another and another. When hunting for Saddam, the liberals were so upset that he has escaped, capture him, put him to death, they are so upset he was hanged.
Liberals=whiners.
They think everthing is nice and neat wrapped up in policy. After Sadr their will be another, the world is full of Sadr, Saddam, Jongs, etc.
Here is some advice: Liberals take care of the minimum wage in the worlds best economy, worry about Wal-Mart in the most capitilistic economy, worry about political corruption is the least most corrupt country, worry about your 100 hours of fame, and let the conservatives carry the real load.

right2bright on January 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM

And because I interpreted your comment to be a tad accusatory, I’m going to ask you a third time to clarify what you meant.

Your response about the possibility of Maliki reneging on his promise to confront Sadr, et. al., does not suffice.
RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Well it will have to suffice. Let me break it down:

-Shiite militias going into Sunni neighborhoods and indiscrimately killing Sunnis is ethnic cleansing.
-if part of the deal is that Maliki puts a halt to this ethnic cleansing in return for our continued/increased support, we have to hold his feet to the fire to ensure he performs
-if he reneges, we have some responsibility. Of course our troops won’t participate, but I believe that propping up Maliki, making him our guy, brings with it some degree of responsibility for what he does.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Oh the convulsions of a liberal mind. This is what they call a streeeeetch. If, if, and if, then we are.

right2bright on January 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM

The Ayatollah Sistani didn’t play this one very well, did he?

I, for the life of me, can’t understand why Bush tolerates these arrogant reporters. If he’d been smart, he would have stopped having White House press corps meetings a long, long time ago. He also would have taken away the press liscenses of the New York Slime and LA Times for leaking information.

PRCalDude on January 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Bush’s plan hinges on the Iraqis coming through on their promises. Anyone who considers this with a cold eye realizes how foolish this is. Maliki is using us to establish a Shiite government, and we’ll be lucky if we don’t get caught up in ethnic cleansing./blockquote>

Honora, you’re entitled to the opinion portion of this comment. I just urge you to reconsider.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM

After installing NoScript on the advice in other threads, the blockquote buttons seem to be malfunctioning. I was pretty careful with that last one…

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Honora, you’re entitled to the opinion portion of this comment. I just urge you to reconsider.
RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM

I would love to reconsider, but I have to read the facts for what they are. Putting the fate of this whole thing in the hands of the Maliki government scares me to death.

Know what else is scary? Bush et al keep saying that if this surge fails, and the Iraqi gov’t fails, it will be Armegeddon. Yet there is no plan B. So this works or Armegeddon? Those are the choices–and again, the success of the surge plan pivots on Maliki coming through.

What could possibly go wrong…..

honora on January 15, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Link to Bush et al using the term “Armegeddon” please.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM

What hits me hardest is the a***ole “journalist”s obsession about American defeat and his sick compulsion to abuse the media power he has to bring about that defeat. W faces the collaborationist enemedia.

Halley on January 15, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Honora, trusting the maliki govt. is admittedly a 50/50 prop. But again, what is your plan. Criticism is fine, but at some point the criticism must be replaced with a strategy. Nice try with the egg, but this is winnable, hardly a proper analogy here. You don’t like what you see, the obvious has been stated. Now, what are your ideas?

And by the way, something interesting is taking place. The sunnis think of us as the lesser of two evils and the shia are not attacking us. There exists an opportunity, no matter how slim, that our perserverance and staying power may allow us to broker a process that will sustain a workable govt. in Iraq. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

honora on January 15, 2007 at 12:32 PM

How do you know there is no plan “B”?

csdeven on January 15, 2007 at 1:24 PM

His counterfactual about how Saddam would have responded to Iran’s drive for nukes is on the money, though.

posted at 10:35 pm on January 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

LOL. So, now we’ve invaded to prevent an arms race between Iraq and Iran? Them straws won’t keep it afloat.

THeDRiFTeR on January 15, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Honora, trusting the maliki govt. is admittedly a 50/50 prop. But again, what is your plan. Criticism is fine, but at some point the criticism must be replaced with a strategy. Nice try with the egg, but this is winnable, hardly a proper analogy here. You don’t like what you see, the obvious has been stated. Now, what are your ideas?

And by the way, something interesting is taking place. The sunnis think of us as the lesser of two evils and the shia are not attacking us. There exists an opportunity, no matter how slim, that our perserverance and staying power may allow us to broker a process that will sustain a workable govt. in Iraq. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Nice Primo Levi use. I have answered this question several times, which is frustrating for me, but obviously you don’t spend your time keeping up on my utterances! I would partition the country into 3 parts, guarantee an equitable split of oil revenues, and seal the borders (containment). This is (I believe) more or less what Biden has been proposing. Perfect? Hardly, but it would get us out of the crossfire and put us in a better position re Iran.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Link to Bush et al using the term “Armegeddon” please.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

You said it, not me!!

Vincula de linguae vel tibi linguae dabit.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 1:51 PM

honora on January 15, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Unless you were sarcastic in this comment, I took you for getting serious, until you attacked RushBaby’s ‘seriousness’.

…something interesting is taking place. The sunnis think of us as the lesser of two evils and the shia are not attacking us…

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I also find it ironic and interesting that the Americans turn out to be the protectors of the Sunnis, and that they are beginning to regret the insurgency.

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 2:05 PM

You said it, not me!!

Vincula de linguae vel tibi linguae dabit.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Burma Shave.

What is the point exactly of being strictly literal? No, Bush did not say “Armegeddon”. Does this render my point any less valid?

If that’s the best you can do, it would appear you have no response to my argument.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Link to Bush et al using the term “Armegeddon” please.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Honora, I can assure you I am a serious poster. I was going to ask the same question RushBaby did. Please provide a link where Bush used the term Armegeddon.

Glynn on January 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Honora, I can assure you I am a serious poster. I was going to ask the same question RushBaby did. Please provide a link where Bush used the term Armegeddon.

Glynn on January 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Oh for the love of God.

Armegeddon:

–noun 1. the place where the final battle will be fought between the forces of good and evil (probably so called in reference to the battlefield of Megiddo. Rev. 16:16).
2. the last and completely destructive battle: The arms race can lead to Armageddon.
3. any great and crucial conflict.

No he did not use that exact term. Here’s a fun thing to try: go back to my post and insert “great and crucial conflict” for “Armegeddon”. Does it make a difference to the point I was making?

honora on January 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM

RushBaby and Glynn, before honora slaps you for other reasons, it’s Armageddon.

Entelechy on January 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Does it make a difference to the point I was making?

honora on January 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Well, you do have to admit Armageddon does ring a little sensational, no? Why not, Mother of All Battles. Worked so well for the guy that coined it.

THeDRiFTeR on January 15, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Well, you do have to admit Armageddon does ring a little sensational, no?

You tell me: from the President’s speech:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

On the other hand, Mother of All Battles has a certain elan.

honora on January 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Entelechy, *thanks*. I noticed the typo too, but was not going to point it out. On this very thread, I made some posting booboos :) It can happen to anyone, regardless of how careful we are.

PIMF, ahem.

Honora, since you’re not impressed with my Latin, here’s a quote in English you can use:

“What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchins

And yes, the words you use do make a difference to the point you are making. This is a written forum. Words mean things. Armageddon, in the context you used it, is hyperbole.

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM

You guys are wasting your time. When caught in a lie, or is trapped by logic, she makes a personal attack then disappears.

I mistook you for a serious poster. My mistake.

This is the type of post she uses to excuse herself for not being accurate. She attacks the accuser for calling her out.

right2bright on January 15, 2007 at 3:17 PM

And yes, the words you use do make a difference to the point you are making. This is a written forum. Words mean things.
RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM

RushBaby, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship!!!!

honora on January 15, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I agree.

[extends hand...]

RushBaby on January 15, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Armageddon sick to my stomach…

[...extends warranty...]

profitsbeard on January 15, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I find the Biden plan (partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd areas) interesting, but I’m not sure that it answers some important questions.

1) Some areas (Baghdad for instance) are mixed areas. Do these areas need to be ‘cleansed’ in order for the partitioning plan to work? If so, will Iraqi’s be alright with being relocated away from their homes simply so they don’t have to have neighbors who are different? If the partitioned areas are not ‘cleansed’, what is to stop the people in the still mixed areas from continuing to kill each other?

2) Assuming the partitioning happens, what keeps the partitioned ‘states’ from warring on each other?

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence). If we partition Iraq into three states and one of them is an independent Kurdish state, how do we avoid the war spreading into Turkey?

4) The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not the only people in Iraq. How does the 3 state solution guarantee the protection of smaller minority peoples and religions in Iraq?

JadeNYU on January 15, 2007 at 6:10 PM

I would simply point the honorable honora to the former Yugoslavia and of course India and Pakistan. I would hardly call these partitions success stories. It looks easy from this part of the world to say ah the hell with it, take the pie slicer to the country. And please, cut the juvenile tactics. I doubt seriously anyone on this list has read everyones rants and raves.

You want to believe partition will work, fine, but I notice you stated that this would get us out of this. I didn’t notice the words win or victory in your post. I seek victory, not a way out…..

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM

This is like cracking open an egg and then turning to the person who told you not to do it and asking them what their plan is to put it back.

It’s really like being in a roomful of people, saying you’ll break open an egg if a majority of those people agree you should. So they take a vote and most vote to drop it.
Then, when the egg breaks open, some of the people that told you to go ahead and break the egg now say, “Woah. I didn’t know it would get messy. That needs to get cleaned up”. And while everyone stands around watching, the egg starts to drip onto the floor.
So you start to clean up the egg with paper toweling, and the yolk breaks and smears, and most of the people say “It is taking too long! I’m sorry I ever supported this egg breaking. Clean it up now!”.
So you think about it and then say, “In addition to the paper toweling, I’ll get a mop. And I’m going to cordon off the room so that nobody else comes in and steps in the egg”.

And everyone says “NOOOO! We won’t pay for your mop. And we don’t support the way you want to cordon off the room. Just clean up the egg, it’s all your fault!”

Bush’s plan hinges on the Iraqis coming through on their promises.

And the partitioning plan hinges on what, exactly?

MayBee on January 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence).

And we should respond, we don’t have a problem kicking your arse, we aren’t the British. When we roll through the straight, you won’t stop us.

Tim Burton on January 16, 2007 at 1:27 AM

I find the Biden plan (partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd areas) interesting, but I’m not sure that it answers some important questions.

Good questions. Answers perhaps less so. But let’s not forget what the comparison is, it’s compare to the current plan. Perhaps we are looking for the less bad solution.
1) Some areas (Baghdad for instance) are mixed areas. Do these areas need to be ‘cleansed’ in order for the partitioning plan to work? If so, will Iraqi’s be alright with being relocated away from their homes simply so they don’t have to have neighbors who are different? If the partitioned areas are not ‘cleansed’, what is to stop the people in the still mixed areas from continuing to kill each other?

I understand that there has already been significant movement. Putting aside the million or so who have emigrated, a lot of the Sunnis are moving to Sunni enclaves, effectively leaving the Shiite to the majority of land. If people don’t relocate, they would be taking their chances.2) Assuming the partitioning happens, what keeps the partitioned ’states’ from warring on each other?

Our military, for a closed end period.

3) Turkey has made it quite clear that they are not alright with an independent Kurdish territory. They’ve mentioned a willingness to use a military force to subdue a Kurdish territory in Iraq (based mostly on a fear that their opressed Kurdish minority will declare independence). If we partition Iraq into three states and one of them is an independent Kurdish state, how do we avoid the war spreading into Turkey?

Well, again, how do you avoid that now? The suggestion is a loose confederation, basically 3 states under the Iraq umbrella. Which is de facto what you have now, only much less orderly.
4) The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are not the only people in Iraq. How does the 3 state solution guarantee the protection of smaller minority peoples and religions in Iraq?

Don’t know. Have these lesser groups been targets to date?

Forgive the bold, trying to separate Q from A

JadeNYU on January 15, 2007 at 6:10 PM

honora on January 16, 2007 at 9:51 AM

It’s really like being in a roomful of people, saying you’ll break open an egg if a majority of those people agree you should. So they take a vote and most vote to drop it.

The majority of Dems in House voted against breaking the egg. In the Senate, the Dems voted 26 yea, 21 nay (think that’s right).

To keep up the analogy, perhaps the moral is, be careful who you let handle the eggs.

(With a little effort, you could have weaved in “out of the frying pan, into the fire” ;^) )

honora on January 16, 2007 at 9:55 AM

I would simply point the honorable honora to the former Yugoslavia and of course India and Pakistan. I would hardly call these partitions success stories. It looks easy from this part of the world to say ah the hell with it, take the pie slicer to the country. And please, cut the juvenile tactics. I doubt seriously anyone on this list has read everyones rants and raves.

You want to believe partition will work, fine, but I notice you stated that this would get us out of this. I didn’t notice the words win or victory in your post. I seek victory, not a way out…..

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM

There are just as many success stories; I would hardly call India and Pakistan a failure.

If by victory you mean an Iraq that is our ally and can stand on its own, I believe you are living in a dream.

My fear now? That Bush won’t rest until he attacks Iran. Iran of course having a very sizable portion of its population that is pro-West. Arguably the only country save Israel in the mideast with this situation. Which could turn quickly if we attack.

honora on January 16, 2007 at 10:01 AM

And please, cut the juvenile tactics. I doubt seriously anyone on this list has read everyones rants and raves.

ritethinker on January 15, 2007 at 7:39 PM

And please, develop a sense of humor. I was poking fun at myself. Save the chastisements.

honora on January 16, 2007 at 10:05 AM

MayBee on January 16, 2007 at 12:41 AM

A better and more accurate analogy.

right2bright on January 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM