Stab in the back time

Senate signals support for Iraq timeline

The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March, triggering an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief.

Republican attempts to scuttle the nonbinding timeline failed, 50-48, largely along party lines.

The vote marked the Senate’s most forceful challenge to date of the administration’s handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, and increased the likelihood of a veto confrontation this spring.

I was a little surprised to see how quickly a number of bloggers have picked up the “stab in the back” phrase. Isn’t that choice of words a little tainted?

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 27 Mar 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Dems press Iraq vote despite veto threat…

    Senate Democrats said Tuesday the White House’s latest veto threat would not dissuade them from push…

Comments

  1. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, this vote is little short of amazing, for two reasons:

    1. Most importantly, of course, because it tracks almost perfectly the process I predicted would occur when I came to your fine blogspace for the very first time in response to your “Democrats DO SOMETHING!! post. It’s all about me.

    2. It’s very, very clear now that the Democrats’ strategy of turning the screw a quarter-turn at a time is working. Although it superficially appears that the Dems only picked up three votes from last time (Nelson, Hagel and G. Smith) that’s not all that happened. McConnell allowing Reid to invoke cloture was extremely significant (McConnell’s pale and pathetic spin for that notwithstanding).

    To recap: The first effort in the House failed. The first effort in the Senate failed. The next effort in the House succeeded. The next effort in the Senate succeeded.

    Heck, even three days ago the Rightside punditocracy and loyal Bushie contingent was mocking the notion that this would even get to the Senate floor, let alone pass. People were speculating about Senators in support of Bush would deadlock the House/Senate conference after the Senate passed a “clean” bill in response to the House’s restrictive language.

    Dross. All is dross.

    Basically, Bush is going to have veto the POPULAR House bill.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 9:28 pm

  2. jfxgillis wrote:

    Also:

    I was a little surprised to see how quickly a number of bloggers have picked up the “stab in the back” phrase.

    Not only did they pick it up quickly, they won’t drop it for the next FORTY YEARS so we all best get used to it–folks of your general political persuasion especially.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 9:37 pm

  3. Jack wrote:

    Many don’t know the history of the “stab in the back” phrase, and many who do know the history don’t understand it.

    Sad…

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 9:42 pm

  4. a former european wrote:

    No question that Bush has badly mishandled the execution of this war. I still support having gone there in the first place and staying there now, however.

    The jihadi propaganda machine, and basically America’s enemies in general since Vietnam, have leveled the charge that the US is a paper tiger. The US lacks the will and fortitude to fight a determined enemy. It looks like our enemies are correct. Once we start sustaining some casualties, we will cut and run like a bunch of Frenchies.

    I have read the various reasons and arguments against the war. Those same arguments can be leveled against practically ANY war. This means we have a significant portion of the public that believes we should never go to war. This is the unabashed opinion of the Left, in any case. Well, if that is how the public truly feels, then we should never fight, because that might lead to a war. If we never should fight, then just roll over and surrender to Sharia law now.

    The jihadis hate us because we are not fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalist Islam follows the “convert or die” principle. Which is your choice? We can’t, after all, fight them. This might get us into another war.

    We have lost somewhere between 3-4 thousand troops thus far. While any death is a tragedy, casualties happen when you are at war, or even when you are not at war like 9/11 proved.

    Historically, 3-4 thousand casualties in a war was considered insignificant. Even in ancient sword-and-shield times, this level of casualties would represent a single, small battle in war. In our Civil War, this loss level might be a skirmish. Try reading about the losses suffered at Antietam or Gettysburg.

    This, in turn, pales in comparison to casualty figures in WWI and WWII. The losses on D-Day alone dwarf our total losses in Iraq.

    What fools our forefathers were! Who cares about the question of slavery. Abe Lincoln, along with his political generals, botched and mishandled the first half of that war and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost.

    The allies were even bigger idiots in WWI sending massed waves of fighting men into a hail of machine gun fire. The butchery was sickening. Why should we have cared about the Europeans?

    In WWII, Hitler could have never seriously threatened us across the ocean. Germany was not a naval power. Yeah, it would have sucked to be a european or a jew in Nazi-occupied territories, but that’s their problem. We should have just not gotten involved, or pulled out after, and let the ******** slaughter one another. Not our problem, and we could have saved hundreds of thousands of american lives.

    I would agree with the several valid objections re the particular strategy or tactics used in Iraq. While there has never been a perfectly handled war, the handling of this one leaves much to be desired. Usually, though, a faulty strategy or bad tactics would cause one to find a better strategy or more efficient tactics. For example, the deadlock of trench warfare in WWI led to the development of Stosstruppen infiltration tactics by the Germans, and tanks by the allies. The failure of prior strategies and tactics did not lead to immediate surrender and capitulation by either side.

    This is not a dispute over handling of the war, which I would support, but a challenge to the war itself. This gets back to the basic question of whether the US believes anything is worth fighting for anymore. Protection of our citizens? Apparently not. We should ignore states or tyrants that support terrorists who attack americans.

    Will we fight for a moral principle like we did to eliminate slavery? Nope. Too bloody and tiresome.

    How about to protect peoples from fascist-style oppression? Heck no! The anti-war argument seems to be that we should let the Sunnis and Shiites slaughter one another to their hearts’ content. They’re not americans after all, only wogs.

    The europeans are already ahead of us on this road. They believe that there is pretty much nothing worth fighting for anymore. Not morals, not people, not culture, not Western Civilization. They are being overrun by Muslims who will not assimilate, but instead demand that Europe become an extension of the Middle East. Muslim killers assasinate those with whom they disagree, as that gentleman from Holland found out. Elemental rights of Western Civilization such as free speech will not be defended as the political cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) fracas showed in Denmark. The rights of women are also anathema to the jihadis, but I have yet to hear the feminist groups decry the “women-as-property” view of Islam. In England, Muslim groups have set up their own Sharia courts and demand England adopt Muslim standards of law, dress, and behavior.

    I guess we better be ready to buy our prayer rugs and learn to pray to Mecca as well. For those who say these ideas are far-fetched, and would never happen here, I heard a story about Muslim cabbies in Minnesota that are now demanding the ability to refuse to accept fares from jews, women, and those with dogs, even seeing-eye dogs because they are considered unclean in Islam.

    Don’t fight it. Just relax and give in. Surrender and all the pain will go away. Sometimes I weep for our nation.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 10:54 pm

  5. Hans wrote:

    Jack,

    The only historically significant use of “stab in the back” that I can think of, off the top of my head, is what the German right wing called Germany’s surrender in WWI. Is that what you had in mind?

    Aside from that, here’s my two cents: the Dems want the war to be over before January ‘09, because then the war started on Bush’s watch and ended on Bush’s watch: it’ll be Bush’s War.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 11:35 pm

  6. bob burns wrote:

    It’s a sad sad day for our country. Stand up or lay down. Now that we’ve laid down, the will to survive is gone. Maybe the Chinese will do better, I guess it’s their turn now

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 12:01 am

  7. a former european wrote:

    Hans, you are correct re the use of “stab in the back” by Germany.

    Subsequently, my peoples, the Czechoslovaks, used that phrase to describe their treatment by France and England at Munich in 1938. They were sold down the river to suffer under the Nazi bootheel in an effort to appease Hitler. We all know how well that worked out. Neville Chamberlain is still revered today as one of history’s great diplomats and pragmatists, isn’t he?

    In Iraq, the Kurds at least have been our staunch and loyal allies, even if various Sunni and Shiite factions have not. By cutting and running in Iraq, we will be abandoning the Kurds and proving to the world once more that we are only a fair-weather friend. Should we consider this another feather in our cap?

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 4:42 am

  8. canuckistani wrote:

    The question is not whether Americans are willing to fight for their safety. The question is whether Americans are willing to fight and die in a war that has nothing to do with their safety. If you wanted to stop AQ, invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Iraq? Not so much. No
    WMDs, no ties to AQ, nothing but personal family humiliation for the Bushes.

    This is the unabashed opinion of the Left, in any case. Well, if that is how the public truly feels, then we should never fight, because that might lead to a war. If we never should fight, then just roll over and surrender to Sharia law now.

    This may be an oversimplification. (ed. — That’s what you meant, right?) I think if you query your leftist friends, you will find the War in Afghanistan had overwhelming support among all but a few fringe idealists and nuts, both among the American left and among your gutless allies. There are better ways of fighting Islamic Fundamentalism than invading secular middle eastern countries. Why not go after Saudi Arabia, home of the Bin Ladens, most of the 9/11 attackers and the Wahabbist base that funds AQ? Why not Pakistan? Why not finish the job properly in Afghanistan if you’ve got such a hard-on for war?

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 10:18 am

  9. BloodSpite wrote:

    I’ll grant you the WMD argument. I will not grant you the “No ties to Al Queda” argument

    I’m not going to clog Commie’s server with a bunch of links, but feel free to Google the information as I did.

    It was Al Queda’s #2, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahri, who traveled to Baghdad in February 1998 and met with one of Iraq’s vice presidents. ‘The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz,’

    According to a sensitive reporting [from] a “regular and reliable source,” [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz. note: it is later alleged and well-supported that the Ansar Al Islam terrorist training camp in an area of Saddam-controlled Northern Iraq run by Mohammed Al Zarqawi Al Queda’s chemical and biological weapons specialist is the result of this meeting.

    On February 23, 1998, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a famous fatwa about the plight of Iraq. Published that day in al Quds al-Arabi, it reads in part: ‘First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. . . . The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million . . . despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.’

    In March of the same year an Al Queda envoy visits Baghdad from Sudan and extendes trip another week to further plan visit from Bin Laden.

    Spring 1998, Sudanese leader Hassan Al-Turabi again acts as mediator between Baghdad and Al Queda. Iraqi Intelligence leaders meet with Al Queda’s Mohammed Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim (sometime between April 25, 1998 and Mmay 1, 1998).

    Al Queda’s Mohammed Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim meet with Qusay Hussein-then responsible for all Iraqi Intelligence matters. Both sides are satisfied with negotiations regarding cooperation and a possible shift of Al Queda operations from Afghanistan to Iraq.

    As a result of April-May discussions between Iraq and Al Queda, Iraq agrees to begin training Saudi Intelligence Operatives who are in league with Al Queda, inside Iraq.

    In Mid July Al Queda’s #2 man, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, secretly travelled to Baghdad to meet with various officials-including VP Taha Yassin Ramadan. The purpose of this secret meeting was to discuss the “modalities” of Bin Laden’s new base of operations in Iraq, the expansion of Islamist/Al Queda/Mujahedeen training (as expected by the Iraqis), and to help further develop a joint strategy for an anti-US jihad in the Middle East and North Africa.

    During his Mid July visit to Iraq, Al Queda’s #2 man, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri was taken to visit the various training camps that had been setup in Iraq and were already operating. He visited camps near Nasariah, Fallujah, one south of Baghdad (likely Salman Pak), and one that had been built out in the middle of the Iraqi desert back in 1997 specifically for training Islamists provided by Al Queda. They also took Zawahiri to at least one potential headquarters site for Bin Laden’s hoped/expected move from Afghanistan to Iraq.

    Not recent enough for you?

    Iraqi security forces on Monday (as in 2 days ago) confirmed the arrest of an al-Qaeda leader and two of his aides in western Baghdad, according to a report by the Voices of Iraq news agency.

    ‘A force from 3rd Brigade raided Abu Ghraib area and arrested Ahmad Farhan and two of his close associates last Tuesday,’ Baghdad security plan spokesman Qassem Atta told a press conference in the city.

    How about September of 2003?

    Mr. Feith responded in September with the letter listing 50 intelligence reports from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.
    The reports are from detained Iraqis and communications intercepts. According to the intelligence report, as revealed by the Weekly Standard, the letter states:
    •Between 1992 and 1995, Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi set up a number of meetings between former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi and Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden’s closest adviser. Other IIS-al Qaeda meetings occurred in Pakistan. Sometimes, al Qaeda members would visit Baghdad.
    •Brig. Salim al-Ahmed, an IIS bomb maker, traveled to bin Laden’s farm in Sudan and gave instructions on how to build sophisticated explosives. He was observed at the farm in the fall of 1995 and again in July 1996, the year bin Laden left Sudan and established a new base in Afghanistan.
    •Mani abd-al-Rashid, IIS director, went to the farm to meet bin Laden during the same time period.
    “The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden’s farm and discussed bin Laden’s request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport.”
    Bin Laden asked that al-Ahmed, who is skilled in making car bombs, stay at the farm after al-Rashid departed.
    •Al-Zawahri traveled to Baghdad in February 1998 and met with one of Iraq’s vice presidents.
    “The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz,” the intelligence report states.
    •In late 1998, Iraq sent an intelligence official to Afghanistan to seek close ties with bin Laden and the ruling Taliban.
    “The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda.” A senior Iraqi intelligence official met with the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Thereafter, bin Laden hosted a series of meetings with Iraqi officials in Pakistan.
    •After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, two al Qaeda operatives traveled to Iraq for training in chemical and biological weapons.
    Much of the information in Mr. Feith’s letter was compiled by a special team he assembled in 2002. Their job was to study a decade of raw and confirmed intelligence on any ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, and put it in one report.

    To say there is no connection is foolishness, in my opinion.

    When police go to a bank, and find a man with a gun holding a bag of cash wearing a mask the chances are 99% he’s a bank robber.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 11:32 am

  10. canuckistani wrote:

    Well BloodSpite, I think the claims you are making are disputable, at the very least. Even if AQ and Hussein’s minions met, I would be inclined to guess the conversation went more like “Pay us $1M in gold and let us train in Kurdistan and Sadr City will stay quiet” than “Even though you are Sunni heretics, and you oppress our Shiite brethren, how can we attack the Great Satan together?”.

    But I guess it really boils down to trust. Given the competence and honesty of the Bush administration in other issues, do I believe that they went into Iraq with a rock-solid foundation for the war? My answer is no, and I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for any questionable intelligence as a reason to invade another country.

    As for your analogy, I’d modify it. If the bank was robbed, and a few days later Vito Corleone calls you up to tell you he saw Tony Soprano driving away with a ski mask and a shotgun, I’d think twice before calling in the SWAT team, no matter how badly you want Tony behind bars.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 1:07 pm

  11. a former european wrote:

    Canuckistani, you are correct that the problem of state-sponsored, or at least state-involvement/support of terrorism in the Middle East is not solely an Iraqi problem.

    Taking that problem on one state at a time, rather than all at once, seems like a reasonable strategy to me. Please review our campaign against the Barbary Pirates in the 1800s for a similar strategy. That was that century’s version of state-sponsored terrorism. We began at one end of North Africa and worked our way down the coast until all the pirate “states” were subdued.

    And yes, my leftist friends were against the Afghani war also. The Cindy Sheehan crowd, including Hollywood and the aging hippies of the Vietnam era, are anti-war period.

    I am not the warmonger caricature you want to paint me. I simply believe the jihadis when they openly state they want to destroy us and our way of life. Oh yeah, and slaughter all the jews too. Watch Al-Jazeera if you want confirmation of this. Given this threat, I believe in seizing the initiative and meeting the threat head-on. The ostrich defense seldom works.

    Having said that, my main regret is how ineptly the Bush administration has executed this perfectly viable strategy. The bumbling of Bush does not, however, mean the strategy was flawed of itself.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 1:31 pm

  12. DavidC wrote:

    I think the claims you are making are disputable, at the very least.

    canuckistani,

    Of course the claims are disputable. Intelligence is rarely 100%. We weren’t going to find a nice big file documenting Saddam’s links to Al Queda in a manner provable in court.

    do I believe that they went into Iraq with a rock-solid foundation for the war? My answer is no

    My answer is yes. Iraq was an open enemy of the U.S., was violating it’s surrender terms from the Gulf War, evading international sanctions, and we were already bombing them almost daily. Even throwing out the bad WMD intelligence, Saddam was behaving in a way that was practically begging for us to attack, especially given the changed perspective after 9/11.

    Again, Saddam was an open enemy of the U.S., with a desire for revenge, and a penchant for reckless, unpredictable behavior. His removal was long overdue.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 2:21 pm

  13. DavidC wrote:

    Why not go after Saudi Arabia, home of the Bin Ladens, most of the 9/11 attackers and the Wahabbist base that funds AQ? Why not Pakistan? Why not finish the job properly in Afghanistan

    canuckistani,

    The part about concentrating on Afghanistan aside, this argument is just silly, and tends to be made by people that would never have supported actions against those countries. Many people, probably including you, argue that we were not justfied in attacking Iraq, despite the long list of reasons we had, and the fact that Iraq was already our enemy.

    On what grounds could we possibly justify an invasion of Saudi Arabia, or of Pakistan? They at least partially cooperate with us on some issues, and pretend to on others. And no, we couldn’t not invade Saudi Arabia because of the actions of a few of its citizens. If you can’t justify an invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, there is no way you can make a credible case for Saudi Arabia or Pakistan — Iran maybe, but you didn’t mention it.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 2:53 pm

  14. DavidC wrote:

    “we couldn’t not invade Saudi Arabia because.”

    Sorry for the garbling, that should be:

    we coudn’t invade Saudi Arabia just because

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 2:56 pm

  15. commissar wrote:

    I can’t do better than this letter to Sully.

    Yeah, yeah, I know it’s Sully. But it’s actually only an email he received. So,you can read it, without, (shall I say?) “sullying” yourself.

    I’ll put it a little differently. Noting all the reasons for the war, its course so far, and the current state, I am extremely pessimistic about anything like a positive outcome. But, hypothetically, if we had a parliamentary system, and the Bush administration was now sacked over Iraq, and the opposition took power. And then, after some review, the new government said, “we gotta hang in there,” I’d reluctantly support that. I guess, to look forward to Jan. 2009, if a new Dem president does just that, I’ll support it. Mixing this all up with domestic politics, the GOP needs a time-out. McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, whomever … at this point, do not present to me a sharp enough break with Bush’s legacy.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 3:02 pm

  16. a former european wrote:

    I pretty much agree with both you and the writer of the letter to Sully: reasonable enough strategy but extremely, poorly executed.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 6:26 pm

  17. jfxgillis wrote:

    Attacking this bill because of supposed “pork” is ignorant and ridiculous.

    As I demonstrate:

    Of Pork Barrels and Cow Patties

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 6:29 pm

  18. commissar wrote:

    jfxgillis,

    Just here in this blog comment section, we’re gonna be consistent:

    “When the other Party held controlled that branch of government, they did it too,” is or is not a valid rejoinder to malfeasance by the current Party in control. To be specific Bill Clinton* previously controlled the executive branch and the GOP previously controlled the the legislative.

    Your call.

    *I refer not to the “93 fired” meme, but rather instances like using the IRS to harass Billy Dale.

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 8:57 pm

  19. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, Bill Clinton did not use the IRS to harass Billy Dale.

    Which is not to say the IRS didn’t harass him. They did. For good and sufficent reason since he stipulated in court to accepting a gratuity in violation of his rules of employment.

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 10:41 pm

  20. commissar wrote:

    well, then, we’ll agree he committed perjury.

    But, you haven’t indicated which way you want to be consistent.

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 11:35 pm

  21. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie: Who “he”? Clinton?

    Clinton did not commit perjury. He lied under oath, but lying under oath in not perjury without certain other elements added.

    Now Billy Dale–HE committed perjury.

    Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 12:17 am

  22. commissar wrote:

    fine, “lied under oath”

    But, you haven’t indicated which way you want to be consistent.

    Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 7:41 am

  23. jfxgillis wrote:

    Commie, I’m trained in literature, thus, Whitman:

    Song of Myself

    . . .
    Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
    Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
    (Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute
    longer.)

    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.) . . .

    :^{)>

    However, my real answer has to do with proportionality but I’d hate to get into it at the tail end of a buried thread.

    Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 8:04 am

« How can you protect the children?
GEN Robin Olds »