“The bottom line of the testimony this week from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is that, even after the surge, what gains have been made in Iraq are, as Petraeus put it, ‘fragile and reversible,’” columnist E.J. Dionne wrote. “For the administration’s friends, this can only mean that we need to stay the course. President Bush endorsed that approach yesterday, meaning that 140,000 or so troops are likely to still be in Iraq when he leaves office. But the administration’s critics (and even some sympathizers) see the current policy as the equivalent of constructing an expensive road, under hazardous conditions, without being able to explain where the road will lead. The road becomes an end in itself. The point is to keep building it in the hope that it will eventually arrive at some lovely destination. Such a project can go on only so long before someone points out the obvious, which is what Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., did during the hearings: ‘I think people want a sense of what the end is going to look like.’ ”
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 8/7
- Political_mama on Open thread 8/7
- Phantom on Open thread 8/7
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 8/7
- beber on Open thread 8/7
- HLP on Open thread 8/7
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- HLP on Open thread 8/7
68 Comments
round and round in circles …
This is the war we can’t kill. It’s the biggest transfer of public money into private hands in the history of this country. As long as there’s money to be made and American mothers let us get away with killing their kids, this war will continue.
That this war lasted for more that a few weeks is an embarassment to the American military.
Send Jimmeh (Cartuh) over there, he’ll fix it…
George WMD Bush never had any intention of leaving Iraq.
Well Regular,
Arguably the point could be made that a large part of the problems in the Mideast today are a result of Jimmeh’s incredible incompetance in allowing the Shaw of Iran to be deposed.
I agree, send Jimmeh anywhere! Just don’t expect much from the idiot.
It’s “Shah” of Iran, Mr. Jetson.
More to the point, opposing the Iranian revolution would have come across to the world like propping up a despotic U.S. puppet because. . . that’s what it would have been. And since there would be no support from the Iranian people, it’d look a lot like Iraq today–if not worse.
And if Ike and the CIA had not deposed Iran’s democratically-elected president in 1953, then someone like Khomeini would never had become an Iranian hero, and there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran today.
“incredible incompetance in allowing the Shaw of Iran to be deposed.”
The Shah (notice the correct spelling) of Iran was a brutal dictator no different than Saddam Hussein. Was it any wonder that (one) we supported him and (two) his government was overthrown by radical elements of Islam?
We got just what we asked for when the Shah’s government collapsed and a radical fundamentalist Islamic government took over.
You reap what you sow.
Folks gettin’ tired of building The Road to Nowhere? Meanwhile, bush says “Build it they will come!”
We can’t leave or Malaki will demonstrate he’s just as tough as the Shah of Iran ever was!
Notice Al Sadr’s top aid was assinated today, who do you think was responsible, Iran’s govt. or the U.S. govt.?
Should have been Iraq’s
WSClark,
Thank you for your kindness in pointing out the correct spelling for ’shah’.
You say the Shah was no different than Saddam Hussien? Really? How many mass graves did they find when the Shah was gone? How many wars did Iran have with Iraq when the Shah was in power?
I think you might be a little deficient in Mid East history my friend.
The Shah (notice the correct spelling) of Iran was a brutal dictator no different than Saddam Hussein.
He was also a US ally for years–no different than Saddam Hussein!
“You say the Shah was no different than Saddam Hussien?”
Nope, lived in luxury while his people suffered. No dissent was allowed and people “disappeared.”
“How many wars did Iran have with Iraq when the Shah was in power?”
Who supported Iraq in their War with Iran? I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with Ray-Gun.
“I think you might be a little deficient in Mid East history my friend.”
From 1953 until 1979, the Shah of Iran was a US created dictator, hated by Iranians, and propped up by American governments.
The US has a long history of supporting brutal dictators - Viet Nam, Chile, Iran, Iraq - the list goes on.
We should not be surprised when revolution comes to the dictators that we create and support.
Who supported Iraq in their War with Iran? I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with Ray-Gun.
. . .at the same he was secretly arming Iran to get money for his illegal war in Nicaragua.
And guess who Reagan’s special envoy to Iraq was?
http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
Approval to use torture…………….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/interrogation_tactics
“The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where
CIA interrogation methods, including torture, were discussed and ultimately approved.”
“Willi Cici: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!”
“The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where
CIA interrogation methods, including torture, were discussed and ultimately approved.”
That’s just more evidence of what seems obvious to me.
Impeach President Cheney!
Shah, Shaw, Big deal. When you can’t make the point, go after the spelling.
One big difference between the Shah and Saddam; the Shah was on our side bigtime.
“One big difference between the Shah and Saddam; the Shah was on our side bigtime.”
So was Saddam Hussein, until April Gillespie.
WS Clark,
There is nothing in that article which matches the quote you gave.
This is what the article actually says:
“The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.”
The title of the article is:
“Cheney, others OK’d harsh interrogations”
Before I call you a liar, I would like to see you explain where you got that quote of yours from?
Well, Price, since you like to call me a liar when ever I disagree with you, go for it.
But it you should know, I copied the quote and the link from one of those infamous liberal websites. I copied the text and the link directly and did not catch the “subtle” differences. If that prompts you to call me a liar, then have at it.
But tell me, Price, how is waterboarding different from torture?
Why did Bush have to be “insulated” from the meetings?
If waterboarding is not torture, what is it and how do you define torture?
And I know that you are going to call me names anyway - that’s just your nature - but do try to use something original this time.
Am I missing something, Nathaniel, the difference between your quote and Clark’s is this phrase (which was in yours, but not his): “including waterboarding, which simulates drowning.” Maybe he should have used elipses (…) and he might have had he been aware this college paper was being graded. I am failing to see how calling someone a Liar over that error is warrented.
BTW, is Nathaniel, Nathan’s given name? I suspect “yes”.
Steven,
Yes, my name is Nathaniel. Nathan was taken on registration.
The point is that the quote was fabricated. It was false. I didn’t call WS Clark a liar and gave him a chance to clarify before I did.
Waterboarding is not neccisarily torture and the article was quite articulate on walking the fine line on not simply saying torture.
I actually read the articles people post. Perhaps you should read the articles before you post them as well so that you do not present false information.
WS Clark,
They were not subtle differences. One clearly inidcates that torture was apporved.
There is still an argument about whether or not the techniques used by the CIA were “torture.”
Providing a quote which clearly says the CIA said torture holds them much more guilty than otherwise.
It was a very significant word change. You might want to start fact checking that infamous liberal website of yours before you start dragging stuff from it over here.
“so that you do not present false information.”
So, why DID Bush have to be insulated from those meeting, Price?
And what is torture?
“The point is that the quote was fabricated”
One word, Price, just one word, and most people DO consider waterboarding to be torture.
“It was a very significant word change.”
Bullshit - waterboarding IS torture.
I suppose you were just hunky dory with what went on at Abu Ghraib?
Sadr says both Iraq and U.S. responsible. Probably right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080408201860
I always said the poor flunkies were taking the fall for Abu Graib, and it went all the way to the top.
Time for some pardoning.
WS Clark,
The issue isn’t just if Waterboarding is torture or not so who cares what word is used.
In the context of that quote one clearly indicates that the CIA was fully aware that they were going to “torture” someone.
If you can’t see the difference then you have some problems.
Instead of simply admitting you made a mistake, you choose to try to defend that mistake as being just fine.
Actually, mistake is the wrong word. Whoever changed the quote is a liar and your defense of that change doesn’t make you much better.
One big difference between the Shah and Saddam; the Shah was on our side bigtime.
Yeah, Clark, what a hoot! We were so tight with Saddam Hussein that, when one of our ships was hit with an Iraqi missile (oops), we let him off with an apology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)
Imagine if it’d been Iran. . .
WS Clark,
You are starting to sound just like Hilary Clinton.
I’d bet anything that bush exclusively requested/dictated that he be excluded from said meetings. So he could claim plausible denial.
It’s the same pattern we saw on the Libby/Plame scandal. Cheney is the cutoff point.
“Instead of simply admitting you made a mistake, you choose to try to defend that mistake as being just fine”
Did I say the I copied and pasted both the link and the text from a website? I read the article, I tend to skim over parts that I have already read.
“If you can’t see the difference then you have some problems.”
No, my problem is with an American that defends waterboarding as NOT being torture as a matter of semantics.
We, as Americans, are supposed to be better than that. We, as Americans, are supposed to hold the high ground, morally and ethically.
We, as Americans, are not supposed to split hairs on what is right and what is wrong.
You disgust me, Price.
In your zeal to defend all that is Bush, you have let go of your moral and ethical grounding.
We, as Americans, are supposed to be better than that.
WS Clark,
You are changing the subject. Nothing I have posted so far has been my opinion on wateboarding. Yet you choose to segway off and bash me on that.
The issue I raised is that regardless of what you or I think about waterboarding being torture, that quote was a lie.
It doesn’t matter how much you or I think waterboarding is technically torture or not.
That doesn’t give you the right to change a quote in an article or defend posting an outright lie like that either.
The quote was a lie. That was not what was said.
The mere fact that you and I are arguing over waterboarding being torture goes to show you why changing that part of the quote was wrong and what a complete and total attempt at fraud it was.
“That doesn’t give you the right to change a quote in an article or defend posting an outright lie like that either.”
Hey, dumbshit, I didn’t change the quote. It was NOT an outright lie - it was an edited remark on a website - the quote is NOT materially different from the article.
Christ.
Damn, you make me sick, Price.
“Waterboarding is not neccisarily torture and the article was quite articulate on walking the fine line on not simply saying torture.
“I actually read the articles people post. Perhaps you should read the articles before you post them as well so that you do not present false information.”
Thanks for the tip, Nathan.
I’m sure no one will convince you, but waterboarding according to international law is torture. But I do understand your wishing to hold on to that semantic distinction - a distinction, in the scope of international law, is one without a difference, however.
I read recently because of the ABC story about the “Principals” approving enhanced interrogation techniques that they opened themselves to being arrested for war crimes should they go to certain other countries. I recall Kissinger having this same travel restriction problem. I’ll see if I can find the source on the former.
I found the source - there is mixed opinion on whether any of the Principals could be charged with war crimes (at least in this country) - the story is in the first three pages of this column - sources are linked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/10/BL2008041002069.html
We, as Americans, are supposed to be better than that.
—————–
We are better than bushco and his ilk. He has destroyed our moral authority, trashed our reputation, attacked our Constitution. We have much to repair.
283, 6hours, 55 minutes
Well, I’ll try that again.
283 days, 6 hours, 53 minutes
Hey, it’s closer! Whipppee!
WS Clark,
The quote is indeed different from the article.
Steven,
I can’t believe you of all people think changing words in what someone says and then quoting it as if they said it is ok.
“segway”
A Segway two wheeled scooter, similar to the one Bush fell off of.
A Segue means a change in direction without pause.
“I can’t believe you of all people think changing words in what someone says and then quoting it as if they said it is ok.”
Christ, on a website with links, it is COMMON to abbreviate a quote.
Again, debating with Price is like talking to a brick wall.
Damn, and the point of my ORIGINAL post was that Bush HAD TO BE INSULATED from the meeting where (fill in the blank) was discussed, hence the Willi Cici quote.
Can I get a right winger to answer the question - why did Bush have to be insulated from the discussion?
Because of the truth, Bush can’t handle the truth!
WS Clark,
Changing the words of what is said is NOT an abbreviation.
Just TRY answering the question, Price…..
Can I get a right winger to answer the question - why did Bush have to be insulated from the discussion?
WS Clark,
What is the point of answering your questions when you refuse to post the truth anyway?
“What is the point of answering your questions when you refuse to post the truth anyway?”
Chickenshit way out, Price.
You want to argue semantics when it comes to torture. You want to belabor a point, after I already explained. You want to ignore legitimate issues. You defend all that is Bush and condemn anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.
And you seem damned proud of it.
WS Clark,
About 1/8th of your post was on topic. The other 7/8ths was just an ad hominem against me.
And you probably sit there honestly wondering why I wouldn’t simply answer your question?
And you probably sit there honestly wondering why I wouldn’t simply answer your question?
Okay, then: I’ll ask it: Why did Bush have to be insulated from the discussion?
Rage,
I don’t know. I could speculate on the reason, just as you could.
Speculate……………. “Willi Cici: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!”
“And you probably sit there honestly wondering why I wouldn’t simply answer your question?”
No, I was DIShonestly wondering.
Why is it that when I try to discuss something with you, Price, I get the feeling that you are a couple of patties short of a double cheeseburger?
Bush needed plausible deniability for his role in approving torture. Just like he needed such deniability for the Plame outing. Actually a pretty clever manuver - trickier than Tricky Dick was.
Here we go again…
Bush is stupid… EXCEPT for when he is smart enough to be an evil genius.
“Bush is stupid… EXCEPT for when he is smart enough to be an evil genius.”
Bush is stupid.
Cheney is an evil genius.
Bush is stupid.
Cheney is an evil genius.
Yep. Talk about “Tricky Dick”!
“Steven,
“I can’t believe you of all people think changing words in what someone says and then quoting it as if they said it is ok.”
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I think.
I think that waterboarding is torture. People can die from it. Conflating torture and waterboarding is not a problem for me and thus I failed to see the fine semantic distiction you did. I understand our differences of opinion here and suspect you do as well and I don’t know what can be added the discussion. Thanks.
In 2002, we thought there could be another attack at anytime. So given that belief, I think approving enhanced interrogations made sense. Not that I’m condoning it - it was just more understandable.
War attrocities and war crimes will happen even if we say such actions are contrary to U.S. law. It is just how things go in war time. My objection to the Bush administration is their efforts to say that war crimes are not war crimes - if we do them. That sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Steven,
The problem is one of logic here.
Did you ever study logic circles? Torture would be a very large circle. Many things besides waterboarding are in it.
You and I could argue about waterboarding being torture or not, but that is a seperate issue. Anything can be torture if done with calous disregard for the life and well being of the person you are doing it to.
Anyhow, when you substitute into a sentence torture for waterboarding, you have just inserted a word which could easily be mistaken for many different things besides what the issue is about… i.e. waterboarding.
Whoever changed the wording knew exactly what they were doing and how dishonest it was.
In any conversation, if you can’t even maintain the integrity of the comments you are using as a source or quoting from then the integrity of the discussion might as well go out the window as well.
That is why this is a sticking point for me. I can’t just gloss over it like it doesn’t mean anything when it clearly does.
“I can’t just gloss over it like it doesn’t mean anything when it clearly does.”
But you clearly missed the point of my post which as very simple - why did Bush have to be isolated from the discussions of (fill in your word of choice?)
Because he still hasn’t grown a pair since the late 60’s. Which brings me to, why haven’t the Eagle Editors addressed this controversy. Or, did I miss it?
I much prefer Nathaniel.
It sounds really gay.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .
The question asked “where does the road end.”
Wrong metaphor.
It’s how do we get out of the tar pit?
where does the road end.”
The question should be, where would the road end if we stopped paving it.
The “road” to the neocon destination in Iraq is paved with endless money and increasingly acceptable blood.
The road sign is there. It says “Wrong road”.
“That is why this is a sticking point for me. I can’t just gloss over it like it doesn’t mean anything when it clearly does.”
Fair enough, okay. Scroll over Clark’s posts. Easy. Good night…
JIMMEH!!!!
Where are you JIMMEH!!!
JIMMEH CARTUH!!!
SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS! JIMMEH!!!
Yes, Iraq = A Bridge to Nowhere.
Perfect analogy.
Just like Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) $200MM+ bridge to ….what?… in Alaska, thanks to Augustus Stupidus we’ve got 100% of our discretionary military sunk up to its eyeballs in Baghdad providing “space” for Iraq to do….what?
Since 2003! If McCain has his way, it’ll be there until 2103… as long as American body armor holds out and does its job.
And nobody, not one American, can say what exactly we’re going to accomplish there. The most likely scenario is that Iraq will end up becoming Western Persia.
And US taxpayers will foot the bill.
Reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies, maybe the best Western ever made, “True Grit.” Mattie Ross, brandishing lawyer J. Noble Daggett before the crooked Ft. Smith auctioneer Col. Stonehill. states, “I will take it up with mine - Lawyer Daggett. And he will make money and I will make money and your lawyer will make money… and you, Mr. Licensed Auctioneer, you will foot the bill.”
To paraphrase, and to insert words in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mouth: “I will take it up with mine - Muqtada al-Sadr. And he will become powerful and I will become powerful and Blackwater will make money… and you, Mr. US Taxpayer, you will foot the bill.”
Iraq = A Bridge to Nowhere = An American Clusterf*ck.