I’ve mentioned before that I thought, not too long ago, that Hillary Clinton might be an acceptable President…dynastic issues and all. This sort of thing, however, combined with my earlier misgivings, have convinced me otherwise.
My tepid support for Rudy Giuliani is growing warmer by the day.
via Glenn Reynolds
Filed under: Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Rudy Giuliani
Guiliani would be a disaster. Surely there is somewhere else to go.
[...] The Clinton campaign declined to comment I’ve mentioned before that I thought, not too long ago, that Hillary Clinton might be an acceptable […] [...]
I’m not supporting Hillary, but … Rudy Giuliani? Bernie Kerick’s biggest fan and supporter? Personally, I have some questions about his judgment of character.
LOL, twc — If his judgment of character is all you have questions about, then he’s in pretty good standing, I’d say :-)
Look, I still have questions about the guy myself. Of the frontrunners on either side of the aisle, though, I think at this point in time, he’s the least weak on issues I care about. It’s another 100 days or so until there’s a nominee, so things could still change.
To me it reflects the basic cockiness of the Clinton campaign: there is no valid reason to have Sandy Berger as a consultant. There are literally millions of consultants out there, does he really add enough to make the negative publicity worth it? He’s obviously an idiot, looking at the entire case. Why would you even need him? Payback for shutting his mouth?
I think it goes to the fact that the Clintons think they have this election all but locked up and in the bag. They can do whatever they want and get away with it. Dems will be forced to vote for her if they want to recapture the whitehouse, and they hope Republicans are damaged enough they can’t compete with her money and her savvy and competent team.
I have to believe in my country, and that the American people will not re-elect a Clinton Admin, for many, many reasons.
Whatever they said about GWB, no one has ever credibly called him dishonest or unfit for the office, outside of rabid moonbats. That’s why he was elected and re-elected. By Bill’s 2nd term he had so damaged the office and so disgusted the electorate that he had killed Gore’s easy election.
I think that stink will come back to America’s nose when they focus on the election and get a big new bellyful of Hillary! and co.
Well, Doc, I completely disagree with the second half of your post. As I said above, I’m not a supporter of Hillary, and you may call me a moonbat if you wish, but I definitely say it loud and clear: GWB is dishonest and unfit for the office. He has demonstrated his dishonesty in small ways and large, from covering up his OUI conviction and being grounded from flying and going AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard service to conducting the furthest possible thing from a “humble foreign policy” and lying the country into a disastrous war. And his entire presidency has been one long, painful demonstration of his utter lack of preparation and competence to serve. This country will be paying for many years to come the steep price of putting into office this weak and foolish son of a decent public servant. We should have elected Al Gore.
Wait, we did. O.k., the SCOTUS should not have installed GWB.
All that crap about “being grounded and going AWOL” is, frankly, bullshit. Didn’t happen.
And lack of competence: He’s won 2 wars handily. Sure the occupation is hard, but wars are hard. They take years to get right. Once the war begins, things change. He changed the strategy, and we’re winning. I don’t think anyone else could have done better, and I don’t even know anyone else who could have done as well.
I well remember the predictions of an American massacre, just like the Russians and British, in Afghanistan. We won in like 2 months, destroying the Taliban. We’ve still got them crushed, even with thousands of miles of distance, hostile terrain, hostile tribes, anti-US propaganda in the media and almost the entire world carping at us and not helping, we’re still winning. Same in Iraq. I call that competence.
I defy you to name one of these ‘lies’ President Bush has told that is not a creation of the media instead of an actual lie. President Bush is not only competent, he’s probably one of the greatest presidents ever, and his work is going to change the world for the better in coming generations. He’s the first to break from “tyrants are ok if they help stability” tenets of the Kissinger and James Baker types.
Your last bit about “installing” GWB _does_ reveal you as a moonbat, btw. So, yes, you are a moonbat.
Ahh, Doc. You’re certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not, as they say, to your own facts. Lt. George W. Bush was, in fact, grounded from flight status effective August 1972 for failing to appear for his annual flight physical by July 6, 1972. The order, signed by Maj. Rufus G. Martin, Personnel Staff Officer of the Texas Air National Guard, states: “In accordance with paragraph 2-29m, AFM 35-13, failure to accomplish annual medical examination, 1st Lt. George W. Bush, … is suspended from flying status effective date 1 Aug 1972.” This is a fact. He never flew again after April 15, 1972, although his commitment to serve continued to May 26, 1974. That is a fact. Why did he fail to show up for his flight physical? We don’t know — because he’s never publicly explained it. (Now *that’s* “bullshit,” if you ask me. The taxpayers paid for his expensive flight training and he owes us an explanation for simply walking away from his flight status). He also failed to show up for duty for extended periods, although he was never charged with being AWOL. His annual performance evaluation for the period from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 states that “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report,” and he received no attendance credit and no pay for that entire year. As for the OUI, Bush was arrested on September 4, 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family’s summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He pled guilty, was fined $150, and had his driver’s license suspended in Maine until 1978. When called for jury duty in Texas he would have had to reveal this but for the intervention of his counsel, Alberto Gonzalez.
Unfortunately, Doc, he hasn’t won any wars, handily or otherwise. Entering the seventh year in Afghanistan and well into the fifth year in Iraq, the American servicemembers who spill their blood and lose b0dy parts every day will tell us that their war has not been won — as will the millions of Iraqis who live in fear and chaos. You may call what GWB has done in Iraq “competence,” but the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq calls it “dereliction of duty” and a “catastrophic failure.” Personally, I’m with General Sanchez (and Batiste, and Eaton, and Clark, and Zinni, etc., etc.) who see it as a disaster for the interests of the Unites States. You’re certainly among a very select group who see Bush’s conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as proof of his competence.
I defy you, Doc, to tell me that this statement about the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s undercover status (which evidence has established came from Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, among others) was not a lie: “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”
— George W. Bush, September 30, 2003
Do you dispute that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore resulted in GWB taking office? Was it just a dream?
“President Bush is not only competent, he’s probably one of the greatest presidents ever.”
Well, nothing to say about that except that I could not disagree more. I think he will probably be considered the worst president in the history of the nation, though it’s too early for definitive conclusions. At least Nixon had some important accomplishments to balance his massive shortcomings, and neither Martin van Buren nor U.S. Grant got us into any unnecessary wars.
twc:
1) As YOU said he was never charged with AWOL. He has an honorable discharge from the USAF National Guard. The proper military authorities (and we see you are fond of appeals to authority; this is an example of the valid kind) disagree with you.
As for DUI (I guess in Maine they call it OUI?) you keep using the term “covered up.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Covering up implies some action to suppress the evidence. Did he have the records expunged? Did he falsify a form? Did he bribe witnesses or have a clerk misfile the records?
No, he merely made the decision not to bring it up himself. If I do not mention that I once belched at a dinner with the Queen of England, but it is brought up by someone else, am I covering up an eructation? No. I bet that you do not go around telling everyone of the time you picked your nose when you were six.
As for “being taken care of,” was Libby not tried and convicted? Were not others like Rove and Armitage (whom you omit) investigated and cleared? What part of ‘being taken care of’ don’t you understand? Was he supposed to personally flog Libby? As for commuting the sentence, well, isn’t it too bad the judge denied him bail. Clearly the leftist fantasy is for their enemies to be sodomized or murdered in jail. I daresay you got a little too greedy, or rather impatient.
As for the 5-4 SC decision, if it had gone the other way, it would have still “resulted in” Bush’s taking office. The election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives, which would have chosen the Republican slate of electors and would have chosen Bush as President. SC just cut short the agony.
And I’m sorry that you consider none of his achievements important. History will indeed decide who is right.
nichevo: The fact that Lt. Bush was not actually convicted of the offense of being AWOL doesn’t alter the fact that he failed to show up for duty more than year. He was, in fact, absent without leave from his Texas Air National Guard duty. His military records establish it. Doc thinks it’s “bullshit” but it’s a fact, just like his being grounded from flight status is a fact. Yet he’s never offered any public explanation of it. The point is that these are examples of GWB’s dishonesty in relatively small, personal matters. His dishonesty in larger policy matters is demonstrated by his taking the country to war on false pretenses, among other things.
When GWB was called for jury duty in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case he filled out a potential juror questionnaire and failed to disclose his drunk driving conviction. That’s a little different than your examples of failing to tell people about a social lapse. Under those circumstances I consider that a lie, and I think it fairly meets the definition of “covering up.” You yourself give the example of falsifying a form as “covering up.” When it became clear that this little omission could pose a problem for the sitting Texas Governor he called in Alberto Gonzalez to meet with the judge privately and arrange for GWB be quietly excused from jury duty on the strained legal theory that, as Governor, he might be called upon to pardon the defendant. It worked, in the sense that he got out of the situation without his own prior drunk driving conviction becoming public at that point, but that certainly constituted further “covering up” of his conviction, and another example of dishonest personal conduct.
His 2003 statement that he wanted to know who had leaked the identity of the undercover CIA agent and his promise that they would be “taken care of” if identified was understood (by me and by everyone else who heard it) to mean that he and his administration would not tolerate leaking of such information and that he would use the powers of his office to ensure that anyone who did it was identified and punished. In fact, Scooter Libby had met with Judith Miller of the New York Times to leak the information at the express direction of the Vice President. Not only did GWB not punish the leakers, he continued to employ them (allowing Libby to resign only after he was indicted by a grand jury more than two years later, and continuing for years to employ Rove, Armitage and Fleischer) and he ultimately acted to commute the sentence imposed by the court for Libby’s criminal convictions. Bush’s 2003 statement certainly wasn’t understood to mean that he would “take care of” any leakers by awarding them clemency. I don’t harbor any “leftist fantasy” of violence to Libby, and I daresay you seem prone to resort to labels rather than ideas. My only fantasy was that Bush would at the very least let the federal courts deal with any convicted criminals from his administration in the usual course. He promised more than that, but now we know he was being dishonest.
What do you consider the achievements of this administration, nich?
Heh, keep repeating the myths of the 2000 and 2004 elections to yourself- its the only consolation the left has. You can’t face that the American public had all the information before it, and still rejected your “heroes”, Gore and Kerry.
The main accomplishments I’d call to your attention are first, the economy, next the deficit has dropped again, GWB presided over the plans that won 2 wars handily, and, after a very hard occupation, is now defeating the insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Far from “bungling” either of those wars, I think he handled them as well, if not better, than anyone in the country could have.
Would you say FDR “bungled” Normandy? How about Iwo Jima? How about the Battle of Bulge? Did Lincoln “bungle” Bull Run I&II, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, the Seven Days, Cold Harbor, etc?
The proof is in the winning of the war. Bush is doing so with remarkably few casualties, over a interminably long supply line, against a traitorous and cowardly opposition party which seeks to sabotage our victory, and a press which trumpets any small victory by our enemies while ignoring or even lying about our successes.
Clinton and Carter were absolute failures are presidents. I believe GWB will be seen as the most successful president since Reagan. And that recognition may come, however resentfully, by our LameStreamMedia, and before he leaves office.
The narrative has changed. It is pretty much generally agreed that we are winning the occupation, and the tide is irreversible. Add to his accomplishments the restoration of a SCOTUS which respects the Constitution instead of an activist court bent on establishing via fiat what the hard left cannot through the ballot box.
Furthermore, Bush’s recognition should come right about the time another Republican wins the White House. You, however, are doomed to be a cheerleader for the execrable Ms. Rodham Clinton, who will lose. America will _never_ elect Hillary! as president. Good luck to you sir, in your misery.
Well, let’s take the four accomplishments that you cite for the president that you claim is “probably one of the greatest presidents ever.”
When GWB took office the federal budget had a *surplus* of more than $236 billion. For fy 2007, however, the budget has a *deficit* of nearly $163 billion. (His predecessor, by contrast, inherited from the current president’s father a $290 billion deficit and turned over a surplus). After six years in office (with a Republican congress) Bush has turned a large surplus into a hefty deficit. You’ve got things exactly backwards here, Doc — this is not an accomplishment of the Bush administration, it’s a damning indictment!
You also cite simply “the economy.” Without any specifics it’s a little hard to know how to respond, but the country’s general economic performance has been at or around average during the course of this presidency — perhaps slightly better. Median household income has been essentially flat. It’s certainly been a very good time to be among the wealthiest 1% or so, but the rest of us have, on average, generally drifted along, working harder to stay roughly even. Job growth has been less than under the previous administration, but that’s not a fair comparison since the Clinton administration presided over a period of exceptional economic growth. I would give Bush either a C+ or B- for his economic performance so far — neither very good nor particularly bad. We’ll see how things go over the remainder of his term, but with the number of adjustable rate mortgages coming due for re-sets he is probably more likely to see a final slide than an upturn. (Of course, U.S. presidents generally get more credit or blame than they deserve for the country’s economic performance during their tenures, which is based mostly on factors outside of their control.)
Your reliance on GWB’s conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been discussed. While you think it “is pretty much generally agreed that we are winning the occupation” the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Friday that all this administration can do is “stave off defeat” in Iraq, which he called “a nightmare with no end in sight.” Though I don’t know who you are, Doc, I’m inclined to suspect his credentials and information are a little better than yours on this topic.
As for the SCOTUS, I’ll grant you that this is an area in which GWB has made a lasting impact, though we disagree on the merits of the change. Once again your claim is extremely general, however. In what way do you think that the current Court “respects the Constitution” as compared to previous Courts where were “activist” and “bent on establishing via fiat” what could not be obtained “through the ballot box.” Can you give an example or two? Do you include abortion? He’s not there yet, although he has moved the Court one vote closer to doing away with constitutional protection of a woman’s right to choose (under certain circumstances).
So, to sum up, of the four accomplishments you came up with as the enduring legacy of “one of the greatest presidents ever,” his impact on the deficit is undeniably a negative and not a positive (literally), the economy is roughly a wash — neither an accomplishment nor a failure but about average performance, and his effect on the Court is still difficult to determine although he’s certainly moved it slightly to the “right” in judicial philosophy. Which leaves the wars. The war in Afghanistan, however it turns out ultimately, is not really very likely to make a big difference in U.S. or world history. He knocked the Taliban out of power — a good thing — but has not killed or captured either Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar and whatever happens to Afghanistan it is unlikely to become a shining lasting example of the transformative effects of American power. Basically, you’re relying solely on the hope of some long-term beneficial effects of the war in Iraq to cement the legacy of GWB as one of the great American presidents.
Now *there’s* a thin reed. Good luck, my friend.
Ok, you seem to have problems with complex thoughts, so let’s keep it simple:
Are the Taliban in control in Afghanistan? Do they openly finance and support and protect training bases for Al-Qaeda? Do they conduct justice throughout the country, cutting off hands, hanging people, sitting at the UN as the representatives of a civilized government? Does Saddam? Did the US accomplish both those feats quickly and with relatively few casualties, especially in light of the doomsayers who claimed we would lose tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of troops killed by gas, bio and conventional weapons? Are we not now winning the occupation?
On the economy, GWB inherited a recession from Clinton. Through massive tax relief, Bush turned the country around quickly, notwithstanding the huge blow 9/11 was to the economy.
Has GWB not protected the US from any further terrorist attacks? Is the Al Qaeda not now on the run, fractured, impotent and on the wane? They can’t even offer insignificant little gestures like mailing powder through the US mails, let alone fly planes into towers or explode a bomb ANYWHERE, not even in a small local mall or sports events, and you can be sure they are trying.
These are huge successes.
Economy: best its been in years, and without the ‘bubble’ economy of the Clenis years
Corruption: the Bush admin is the first in recent memory without a scandal, corruption or other malfeasance (I don’t consider the Wilson affair a scandal, no underlying crime was ever charged, proven or even alleged- the Scooter Libby trial was the best the prosecutor could come up with, and it will be over-turned on appeal, count on it).
National Security: no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, and increased and robust vigilance by our NSA
Military: handily won 2 wars, quickly and relatively bloodlessly, and in some of the most meticulous tactics in history at ameliorating civilian casualties, a nicety no other president or regime has bother with.
Occupation and rehabilitation: considering the history, tribalism, regionalism, religious strife and millenia of violence and war in the region, and the total lack of a democratic culture or experience, the alacrity with which President Bush and his team have pacified and democratized Iraq is truly remarkable.
The United States itself, coming from a culture that had a strong democratic tradition, and roots in the Magna Carta and Enlightenment philosophy, it still took nearly 100 years to settle our differences, and it took a bloody civil war that took 5 years and millions of casualties and 100’s of thousands of deaths to settle, and that was among a largely homogeneous society. Hell, it took longer to ratify the Constitution than the war for Iraqi Freedom has taken so far. Yet liberals complain the Iraqis have not yet mastered democracy already.
This is especially rich when Democrats whinge about the slowness of the Iraqi Parliament in passing reforms. Tell that to Pelosi and her “100 hours”. How much have the Democrats in OUR country managed to accomplish this year? Not friggin’ much.
So the bottom line is, when you take into account the very difficult situation, GWB has done remarkably well, and his presidency will leave the world better than he found it, with at LEAST 2 functioning democracies in a part of the world that has never seen such, except for Israel. And that can only help us all move toward a better world.
Not to mention Libya renouncing nukes, the Lebanese army finally taking on Hezbollah, the Palestinians, left to the mercy of their own home-grown terrorists finally waking up and moving toward real democracy, the ongoing operations in Afghanistan isolating Al-Qaeda and rooting them out of Pakistan, etc. etc.
Considering Gore’s fatuous idiocy these last few years, I can only think God in his wisdom saved us from a very cruel fate when he tricked some Jewish women in Palm Beach into voting for Pat Buchanan ;)
Doc:
“Ok, you seem to have problems with complex thoughts, so let’s keep it simple”
Childish insults don’t advance your argument.
“especially in light of the doomsayers who claimed . . . On the economy, GWB inherited a recession from Clinton . . . notwithstanding the huge blow 9/11 was . . . the Bush admin is the first in recent memory without a scandal, corruption or other malfeasance (I don’t consider the Wilson affair a scandal . . . no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 . . . considering the history, tribalism, regionalism, religious strife and millenia of violence and war in the region, and the total lack of a democratic culture or experience . . . The United States itself … still took nearly 100 years to settle our differences . . . How much have the Democrats in OUR country managed to accomplish this year? . . . So the bottom line is, when you take into account the very difficult situation . . .”
Long lists of excuses and ways that it could have been even worse are not persuasive in arguing a case for a president as one of the greatest ever — nor even as basically competent.
“handily won 2 wars, quickly and relatively bloodlessly”
Apart from the fact that they aren’t won, haven’t been quick, haven’t been bloodless, and there has been nothing “handy” about them, I agree completely, Doc. We’re entering the seventh year in Afghanistan and are deep into the fifth year in Iraq. Both wars continue. The outcome of each (in the sense of the effects for the interests of the U.S.) remains uncertain.
Two numbers, however, are incontrovertible and climbing: $1,000, 000, 000, 000 and 61,589 American casualties (3,828 killed, 27,753 wounded, and 4 missing). The value of a dollar and the value of a human life or a human limb must mean something different to you than they do to me.
You’ve given your basic assessment, Doc, so FWIW here’s mine. President Bush inherited (from a Democrat) a country that was in relatively good shape, well-respected and basically on the right track. He will turn over to his successor (most likely a Democrat) a country that is mired in difficulty, broke, off the rails, and much weaker and widely disrespected in the world.
He’s a shallow, petty and weak leader. His selection of the much more experienced, confident, and capable (if deeply misguided) Dick Cheney, the head of his Veep search team who found himself, as Vice President was a huge mistake and the first of many instances of his being successfully manipulated by those around him. He essentially ignored repeated threats of a terrorist strike on the U.S., recovered from a shaky start after 9/11 to do a reasonably good job in the next few months, leading the country ably and properly deposing the Taliban government in Afghanistan. He then foolishly took his eye off the ball and diverted the country’s attention and resources into an unnecessary and ultimately disastrous invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and posed no threat to the United States, leaving the job unfinished in Afghanistan. The Iraq War has been incredibly costly in blood and treasure and the dissipation of American power, and a major boon for our enemies, especially Osama bin Laden and Iran. It’s been an utter fiasco in every aspect and now we’re trapped there with no end in sight. After four and a half years the best we can hope for is a gradual reduction in the daily killing and wounding of young Americans and the breathtaking “burn rate” of taxpayer dollars, a slowdown of the hemorrhaging of American influence and power in the region and the world, a weak Iraq that won’t collapse immediately into a complete humanitarian catastrophe, and a region that won’t descend into open warfare. Meanwhile, his administration has been riddled with incompetents and the self-interested and has accomplished virtually nothing other than to line the pockets of the well-connected. Whole neighborhoods of New Orleans remain unreconstructed and nearly uninhabited. The appointment to key posts of people like “Brownie,” Harriet Meiers, Douglas Feith, Bernie Kerick and Alberto Gonzalez reveals an essential disinterest bordering on disdain for the importance of actual governance that has crippled his presidency. Important initiatives (like the Middle East peace process, progress on global warming, expanded stem cell research and child heath insurance, or an increase in the minimum wage) have been blocked or delayed, and foolish goals (like further tax cuts for the super-rich, privatizing social security or interfering with one family’s end of life decision) pursued. He’s fastened upon the threat of international terrorism — important but not a serious danger to the continued existence of the nation — to distort or abandon fundamental constitutional principles and the basic values of this country. He’s already done so much damage to our national interests that it is hard for me to see how he will escape being ultimately considered among the handful of the very worst presidents in our history — and it is quite possible he’ll land at the very bottom of the list.
I think I’m right and you’re wrong about the past, Doc. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong about the future.
Addendum: the figure of 61,589 American casualties above is only those from the war in Iraq. From both wars it is 65,431 (including 449 U.S. killed and 1,472 wounded in Afghanistan).
It’s also important to note that, sobering as those numbers are, they are only the American military casualties of these wars. They do not include any civilians, nor any dead or injured from any other country. Nor, of course, do they even begin to sum up the number of lives affected in other way, many of them drastic and shocking.
Further addendum: that casualty number doesn’t add up. Instead of 61,589 from Iraq, it is actually 31,585 killed, wounded and missing American military from Iraq and 33,506 from both wars.
Since you’ve basically ignored my major points, it seems senseless to keep repeating them. The fact is, Clinton left at the beginning of a recession, and Bush inherited it- he reversed it, due to the tax relief, and the economy has been in great shape since, unemployment is down, inflation is down, the deficit is down, etc.
The wars were won. The ensuing ‘democratization’ is a different matter. The armies of both Saddam and the Taliban were defeated and control of the country taken in mere weeks. The fact that violence continues does not mean the war was not won. There are people killed in Philadelphia every day, does that mean the civil war continues? There is violence in every middle east country. Do you contend that Israel is still fighting the 7 days war because they still engage the Palestinians? That’s like saying England took 400 years to conquer Ireland.
You also refuse to address the fact that we are currently winning the occupation. Lefties have a lot invested in our defeat, so I can feel your pain at the fact we’re now winning. Michael Yon’s latest email sums it up nicely:
All the talk back in America of partitioning Iraq is a mistake. There is some desire by the Kurds, but overall Iraqis seem very much against the idea of partition.
On another note, during a CNN interview this weekend, I reiterated what I have been saying for some time:
“I’ve seen a very serious change in the seas. I’m not predicting this but I would not be at all surprised to see a precipitous drop in violence in Iraq in general over the next six months or so. I just would not be surprised based on the things that I’m seeing in Nineveh province, out in Anbar, up in Baghdad and out in Diyala and out here. Will it last, nobody knows, but it’s certainly, the indicators are starting to look better and better.”
Let’s hope that continues. This seems like good news, too.
UPDATE: In a followup email, Michael writes:
Al Qaeda is in trouble in Iraq. The civil war that was growing in 2005, and then began erupting in 2006, is now on the decline. I was extremely worried during 2006 that al Qaeda would succeed by engulfing Iraq in civil war, but the Iraqis I speak with in various provinces are now smart about what AQI was up to. AQI tactics are backfiring — hugely backfiring. Strangely, al Qaeda, who nearly caused a complete meltdown, is becoming helpful in uniting Iraq. Strange world, Glenn!
AQI is still dangerous, but they are losing ground month by month. This is a good article.
You should subscribe to Yon’s emails, they are the best reporting from Iraq I’ve seen.
Another point: your casualty figures pale in the light of the dead Saddam is responsible for of his own citizens while brutally ruling them, the dead of the Kuwait and Iran wars, the Palestinians he bankrolled to kill Israelis, and the fact that were he still in power he would now be vying with the Iranians for nukes.
Sure there have been casualties, but although war is evil, there are worse evils.
Doc: Complaining that Clinton left at the beginning of a recession gets you nowhere, for at least two reasons. First, it’s untrue. Second, you claimed Bush’s economic performance was one of the accomplishments that put him into the ranks of the greatest American presidents. Excuses and apologies for underperformance just don’t cut it. “It’s Clinton’s fault” won’t establish GWB as a great American president no matter how many times you repeat it. The deficit is “down” only from the heights that it went up to under this president — it is up from where it was when he took office. His economic performance has been no better than average.
Your insistence on drawing a distinction between “the wars” and “the occupations” is also meaningless. To win two “wars” and then lose two “occupations” doesn’t put the country in any better position — which is, after all, the main job of the President of the United States. Putting up banners declaring the mission accomplished didn’t actually accomplish squat. Dressing up in flight suit and strutting around on the deck of a carrier didn’t end the war, no matter how gooey it made you feel. Iraq is not Philadelphia, and you know that. There’s a war in Iraq, and if you can’t quite bring yourself to say it here’s just a few of the things that happened there today:
10/16/07 Reuters: Gunmen killed tribal leader and his son
Gunmen killed tribal leader Sheikh Saleh Fezea Shneitar along with his son and nephew in a village just west of Baghdad, police said. The tribal leader was a member of the Sunni Arab “Anbar Awakenings Council” fighting al Qaeda in…Anbar.
10/16/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 1, wounds 2 people central Baghdad
A roadside bomb in the central Baghdad district of Karrada killed one civilian and wounded two, police said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds 3 people in Kirkuk
A roadside bomb wounded two truck drivers in northern Kirkuk, police said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills two militants
A roadside bomb killed two militants as they tried to plant the device in Abbasi, police said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Decapitated body found in the town of Abbasi
Police said they had found a decapitated body in the town of Abbasi, 70 km (45 miles) southwest of Kirkuk.
10/16/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 1 person in central Baghdad
A roadside bomb in the central Baghdad district of Karrada killed one civilian and wounded two, police said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Truck bomb kills 4 in Mosul
A truck bomb in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, destroyed a police station, killing at least four people and wounding some 75, police said.
10/16/07 RFE: Former Official Says Political Parties ‘Failing’ To Work Together
Kamran al-Karadaghi, a former chief of staff for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, says that Iraq’s political climate will not improve until the country’s leaders find the political determination to make “very hard decisions.”…
10/16/07 NPR: Iraqi Aide to NPR Missing, Feared Dead
Countless Iraqis have become victims of sectarian kidnapping in Iraq’s capital. One of the victims was Abu Abdullah (not his real name), an officer in Iraq’s Interior Ministry who provided information to NPR’s Baghdad staff. His family fears he is dead.
10/16/07 NPR: Military Memoirs Offer Unfiltered View of Iraq War
A new crop of memoirs from soldiers in Iraq highlights stories from the front lines, the complications of leadership, and the terrible choices that war presents.
10/16/07 Reuters: Turkey defends right to fight Kurds in Iraq
The Turkish prime minister today said that securing parliament’s permission to attack Kurdish separatists in Iraq did not necessarily mean a military operation was imminent
10/16/07 KUNA: Notorious insurgency chief nabbed in Baghdad
American forces have nabbed a notorious insurgency chief who had been involved in attacking a US military base with mortar shells last week, the American Army said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3 policemen in eastern Baghdad
Gunmen attacked a police checkpoint killing three policemen and wounding two others in Zayouna district in eastern Baghdad, police said.
10/16/07 Reuters: Body found in Kirkuk
A body with gunshot wounds and signs of torture was found in northern Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
10/16/07 AP: Car Bomb Hits Baghdad
A car bomb exploded near an Iraqi army checkpoint in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least six people and sending black smoke billowing into the sky, officials said…Flames shot out from a military pickup with an Iraqi flag painted on the side…
10/16/07 WaPo: 3 From Iraqi Newspaper Killed in Ambush Near Kirkuk
Three Iraqi newspaper employees were killed near Kirkuk on Monday when their convoy was ambushed by gunmen, the second deadly attack on Iraqi journalists in as many days.
10/16/07 honoluluadvertiser: Hawaii soldier’s face repaired by Iraq Star
Military doctors patched up Army Staff Sgt. Ryan Goede’s shattered body after a bomb exploded near his vehicle in Iraq three years ago…Sixteen surgeries at nine medical facilities repaired his mangled leg and removed some of the shrapnel…
I’ve addressed this above over and over. You (and apparently Michael Yon) think we’re “winning,” I and many others (such as our former commanders) are not at all sure.
As for the situation on the ground in Iraq, here are some people who have a little experience about Iraq, having recently served and fought there: 12 former Army captains, writing in today’s Washington Post:
The Real Iraq We Knew
By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we’ve seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it’s like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it’s time to get out.
What does Iraq look like on the ground? It’s certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.
Iraq’s institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.
The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq’s oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with “the surge,” we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents’ cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet — moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much “battle space,” are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks — on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.
Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we’re gone.
This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war — and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
America, it has been five years. It’s time to make a choice.
This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William “Jamie” Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.
Doc, are you really suggesting that 32,000 American casualties have been worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq? He was a bad guy who posed no threat to the U.S. How many American casualties are you willing to accept before you say that the price for deposing Saddam Hussein was too high? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000?
[...] broken. I felt it necessary, however, to give twc and docweasel a new thread to hash out, although this one is fascinating reading [...]
twc: Dreary economic reports notwithstanding, I’ve worked in the high-tech sector for just shy of twenty years now. I worked at a couple of dot-coms (accepted a position with one of them the day after the 2000 election), and then, suddenly, I didn’t work at all for six months. The *pop* of the dot-com bubble was a recession alright — Not just for those of us hit directly by it, but for all of the sub sectors and industries that were flying high on dot-com paper.
I think anyone who’s ever nodded in agreement at the “worst economy since Hoover” propaganda that’s been flowing from the lefty blogs should be honest enough to consider the state of the economy as Clinton left it — not as Clinton supporters would like it to have been.
Both of you guys (twc and doc) are putting up a lot of good info, and a lot of good arguments in this thread. I’m really tempted to wrap a lot of it up into a post this weekend, if I can finish digging the holes in my back yard my wife insists on for her newly acquired bushes and plants.
Joe: Sorry to hear about your rough patch. Actually, it wasn’t a recession in the overall economy — although there was a slowdown and it was underway by January of 2001. But, if I understand Doc’s point as applied to your situation, he’s saying the fact that you went out of work for six months during the presidency of GWB shows that he is one of the greatest American presidents. I’m not buying.
I don’t say that his economic performance in office has been worse than Hoover’s — though I do believe that the dreary statistics show that the disparity between the wealthiest and average wage-earning Americans has actually returned to the levels of the pre-Depression era and I think that the policies of this administration are a big reason for that. I said I’d give GWB a B- or C+ for his handling of the economy. And that’s well above what he’d get in nearly every other aspect of his presidency.
Doc and nichevo: I’ll be interested in your comments after you watch this Sunday night’s 60 Minutes interview with Valerie Plame Wilson.
Sorry I haven’t been back, twc. Family illness.
60 Minutes: I don’t watch television anymore. Don’t even know why I keep it.
If you want my opinion of Ms. Plame, she reflects this Administration’s incompetence. Wilson and Plame acted, and continue to act, wrongly and IMHO should have been silenced by the Administration, probably using methods you would find distasteful.
As for the previous post:
I repeat that the people involved in the determination of Lt. Bush’s status are the only ones qualified to speak to it. My understanding is that many NC units in the 1970s were sloppily run and that missing paperwork is not unheard of. Basically you are in the untenable position of proving a negative. In any case the voters had their chance to evaluate and act on this information.
Parenthetically, do you want to delve into Lt. Kerry’s service in Vietnam? Discuss why his records seem to reflect what could be the politically influenced reversal of a dishonorable discharge? The Swift Boat Veterans comprise hundreds of people willing to indict John F. Kerry for, put broadly, conduct unbecoming an officer. Where are your hundreds of witnesses against George W. Bush?
Jury duty/drunk driving: Well, I am not sure what to say. Omission is not quite the same as falsification. For instance, youthful (and not so youthful) records are often “expunged.” One then may be uncertain as to whether to list such the facts of such records on such a form.
For instance, if you or I were arrested for spitting on the sidewalk, or soliciting a prostitute, or smoking a joint, and the charges were dismissed, we would have to decide on, say, a job application whether to mention it. (Applications for security clearance, for instance, are quite explicit about the fact that all such events, whatever their disposition, are to be cited on their forms. Perhaps the jury duty form was less clear. Have you examined the actual record in question?)
In any case, again, perhaps the governor of a state is better favored in a tidy resolution of such issues, but many ordinary people manage to navigate these waters successfully. Again, the issue seemed to be resolved to the satisfaction of all involved.
And again, the voters had their bite at the apple. Reflect also that while it may seem inconceivable to us moderns, drunk driving was not always regarded as the sort of vile sin it is now. Back when it happened the consciousness was less – like smoking cigarettes, say – and might indeed have been, in his own mind, a “social indiscretion.”
Am I Clintonian in my parsing of the above? That would be too bad. It’s nothing you or I wouldn’t have done if we could, I imagine. You might as well bemoan the fact that people who can afford top-rank lawyers often do better in court than the indigent. It is an imperfect world.
As for Libby/Plame/Wilson: Funny, I regarded “taken care of” quite cynically at the time, as you would see it. I’m sure that if he had regarded it as a real problem, he would have acted more severely – though his leniency with such as Tenet may seem to disprove this.
But as I said above, if I were President, I would have silenced Wilson, so the whole thing would never have needed to happen. Apparently Libby’s only crime was deemed to be making false statements. It seems that if he had followed Jack Nicholson’s lead and said, in effect, You’re damn right I ordered the Code Red, he would be a free man. And while I am happy that you do not share common attitudes of the use of prison violence as an instrument of social control, you must bear in mind the expressed will of others who share your views.
“California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, for instance, told the press recently, “I would love to personally escort Lay [referring to Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, Corp.] to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi my name is Spike, honey.’”"
Surely this is clear enough?
…
As for achievements of the Administration: well, these have already been address, it seems, but let me take my whack.
1) Broadly, the economy has been and is good. However, Presidents are not supposed to get credit, or blame, for the economy, which they do not theoretically control, so we could agree to let that lie…not that anyone ever does…
I am pleased with Roberts and Alito.
He has tried to tdo the best he can threading the needle on a number of divisive political issues. I think he has given more ground than you appreciate or will let on. But he has tried to please both sides – for instance, the stem cell compromise. You will doubtless mock, but I found it deft. Not that there aren’t things he has done that displease me…
But the chief thing he has done, is to attain the remarkable insight that present global trends, best reflected in the Middle East, cannot continue. As reflected in the GWOT and elsewhere. You can certainly criticize some parts of the execution, and even wish some things had happened differently, but in the main he is doing what has to be done, and doing it in the face of all opposition.
And he is doing it without the iron-handed techniques that I would use. Or, I daresay, that FDR would have used. Perhaps in fact his restraint has been excessive.
But the ultimate importance of the work, and his resolution in seeing to it, outweighs various deficiencies that in a more congenial political atmosphere I would be more inclined to discuss.
nich: sorry to hear about your family illness. I hope that all is well now.
How did Valerie Plame Wilson act wrongly? What do you think GWB should have done to her, and to her husband, to silence them?
Are you o.k. with Lt. Bush failing to show up for his annual flight physical and being grounded from flight status as a result? Are you also o.k. with his refusal ever to comment publicly on the reasons for this? I’m not.
The relative performances of Lts. Bush and Kerry is not something I want to get into at this point in this thread. I will say, however, that I’m very comfortable with the comparison, whether based on number of combat tours served, performance under enemy fire, number of engagements fought, number of men led in battle, number of enemy killed, number and extent of wounds sustained, medals for valor awarded, or number of American soldiers’ lives saved under fire.
“Omission is not quite the same as falsification.” That’s beyond Clintonian. The charges weren’t dismissed. He was convicted of a crime — which is different than a “social indiscretion,” and he understands that. Failing to include a prior conviction on a juror questionnaire is not something I would do, it’s dishonest, and it certainly constituted an attempt by GWB at “covering up” (as did his successful effort to get himself out of jury duty once he realized the extent of his predicament). He’d also flatly denied being arrested in response to reporter’s question in 1998, by the way — yet another instance of his personal dishonesty on this subject, which is what Doc said had never been credibly charged. (And yes, in Maine, we call it “OUI.”)
I simply do not agree that the invasion of Iraq “ha[d] to be done” at all. Unfortunately, it has proven to be a fiasco and disaster for our national interests.
is anyone still here?
Guess it’s just us chickens, nich…
Joe: how’s that tepid support for Giuliani doing — up or down today?
Down, my friend. Down.
When the evangelicals cast their endorsements in my candidates’ direction, I become deeply suspicious.
Or did you have something else in mind?
I was thinking more along the lines of federal grand juries. But having the likes of Pat Robertson around your neck is big albatross to my mind, as well.
Joe, has Bernie Kerick’s indictment altered your opinion of Rudy Giuliani?
How about this (from Talking Points Memo):
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/rudy_yes_i_voted_for_mcgovern_but_i_actually_preferred_nixon.php
Rudy: Yes, I Voted For McGovern, But I Actually Preferred Nixon
By Greg Sargent – November 23, 2007, 9:25AM
As he seeks to court GOP primary voters, one potential sticking point has been his opposition to the Vietnam War in the early 1970s and his vote for Dem George McGovern in 1972. But Rudy has now concocted a new explanation for that vote: He didn’t mean it.
Or so he says in a new interview with The Weekly Standard:
“I had traditionally been a Democrat,” Giuliani told me in a recent interview in Las Vegas. “It was almost like a reflex mode. I actually remember saying to myself, ‘If I was a person really deciding who should be president right now, I’d probably vote for Nixon, because I think the country would be safer with Nixon.’”
Hmmm. Does this mean that Rudy didn’t vote for the candidate who he himself thought would keep the country safer? Seems a bit odd. Foreign policy and national security issues were kind of front and center during that campaign.
The article also delves into Rudy’s switch to the GOP, which came in 1980. In the piece Rudy seems to suggest that this was driven partly by his discontent with Dems on foreign policy. But as the Standard article accurately points out, Rudy’s switch to the GOP neatly coincided with his desire to get a political appointment from the newly-minted Reagan administration.
To tell you the truth, twc, it doesn’t, much. Yes, Giuliani made a bad decision when he decided Bernie Kerik could be entrusted with the job of Police Commissioner, but honestly: Have any of the candidates for president (D or R) not made bad hiring / firing decisions, or associated with shady characters?
I try to look at these candidates as a package deal, not to focus on one or two things I utterly can’t stand about them. It’s easier for me that way, as I’ve come to the conclusion that ALL politicians are going to disappoint me if I’m looking for the Holy Grail.
Kerik is an issue, for sure, and one I’ll take into consideration as I make a final decision. What’s most interesting to me is that I’ve narrowed it down to two candidates: Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani. Whichever one of those two impresses me most over the next few weeks gets my vote.
Fair enough, although I’d say it was more than just a bad hiring decision with Kerick. The guy was his driver when Rudy reached out and plucked him from obscurity to appoint him to be Corrections Commissioner. Then he appointed him to be Police Commissioner. Then he became business partners with Kerick in Giuliani Partners. Then he pushed the President to nominate him as Homeland Security Director — presumably a critical Cabinet post for the candidate whose entire campaign is based on his understanding of the risk of a terrorist attack and the need to protect us from it. This former federal prosecutor couldn’t recognize a two-bit street thug with mob ties when he saw one at close range — worked closely with him — over years? That strikes me as a pretty massive lapse in judgment on Rudy’s part, and a huge blind spot for people whom he considers loyal. Which I think has been shown, over the last eight years, to be a pretty significant flaw in a president.
But your point about them all having flaws is a good one. What would you say it is that you like about Giuliani, and Clinton?