politburo diktat 2.0

Related Posts

Moving the goalposts at the Weekly Standard

RINO Sightings April 3 Edition

DANEgerus: RINO Sightings

RINO Sightings - up at DANEgerus

Anti Religious Prejudice

Trackbacks & Pings

1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:29 pm

   McCain Mixes Up Iraqi Groups…

   John McCain incorrectly asserted Tuesday that Iran is training and supplying al Qaeda in Iraq, confu…

Comments

1. canuckistani wrote:

   Except he doesn’t know his elbow from his ******* when it comes to Sunnis, Shiites, Iraqis, Iranians, and all those other threatening, weird brown people.

   Well neither did Bush, and that didn’t slow him down.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 11:58 am ¶

2. Grim wrote:

   Well, yesterday he was here, cruising the Iskandariyah market with my commanding general. No armor, see? I remember your remarking about that on McCain’s last visit.

   Now here’s something you probably don’t know about Iskandariyah: it’s a majority-Shiite city on the southern tip of the Sunni Triangle. As such, it has suffered both from radical Shiite elements, and radical Sunni groups including AQIZ.

   It also has an integrated police department, Sunni and Shiite. There were protests when they started letting the Sunnis in — peaceful protests. And within the last few weeks, nine million pilgrims walked on foot through Iskandariyah to get to Najaf and Karbala, the Shiite holy cities. And then back again. There was one bomb — a big one, smuggled into a crowd, that killed sixty people. The other 8,999,940 Shiite pilgrims passed in safety, both ways, protected by Sunni as well as Shiite policemen.

   They didn’t have body armor either.

   Now, I don’t know how much McCain knows about all that. But I know that if he’s elected, he’s not going to leave the people of Iskandariyah — Sunnis and Shiites — to the wolves. I can’t say that about your guy.

   They’re good people down there, brave people. There’s a Votech, which has a class that is integrating women into the school for the first time. There’s a factory that’s making tractors for the farmers; and there’s a farmer’s union, which we helped them set up, so that everyone can get the fertilizer they need to get their agriculture back on track.

   If it’s Iraq we’re to decide our vote on, you keep that in mind.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶

3. Stephen wrote:

   Throwing teh Iraqi people to the wolves?

   No. That’s why it’s called a “quagmire,” i.e. something you cannot get out of easily. Both Dems have made that clear. Today, Obama called for 1 or 2 brigades a month. And both Dems have, awkwardly, hedged when pressed for “date certain full withdrawal” commitments.

   As I’ve said before, if, in 2009, President Clinton, or Obama, (or Edwards) says, “Ugh. I’ve looked at this thing, and we gotta stay longer than I wanted,” I’ll accept that. The GOP, to include McCain, happily embraced this fiasco from the get-go, have been spewing Friedman Unit happy talk for five years now (five friggin’ years!), continue to show basic ignorance, etc.

   No. No. No. Not for me. Time to turn over the car keys to a new driver.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶

4. canuckistani wrote:

   I’d just like to say that thanks to the commies at Balloon Juice, I’m not the first person to bring the word “senile” into the conversation, and I deplore its use, even though McCain is 72 and confused.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

5. David C. wrote:

   Please. Obama doesn’t even know Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq — that’s how utterly clueless he is about the situation. In any comparison, McCain comes off as infinitely better informed about Iraq, despite making a mistake. Here’s what Obama’s own website says under the issues/Iraq section:

   if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

   So I guess when Obama figures out that Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, he won’t be withdrawing any troops. Or maybe he’ll withdraw them and then send them back in. That’s a good idea.

   Today, Obama called for 1 or 2 brigades a month.

   Withdrawing troops for the sake of withdrawing them, regardless of the situation, isn’t a plan. That’s yet another strong reason to vote against Obama.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 5:28 pm ¶

6. Stephen wrote:

   David,

   Trying to conflate the homegrown Sunni insurgents who call themselves “AQI” with the AQ of Bin Laden, the Taliban, in Afghan/Pak is not worthy of you.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 8:09 pm ¶

7. 46&2 wrote:

   David C., stop trying so hard to be ignorant. Of course Obama knows Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Such a willfully foolish statement doesn’t require any more comment.

   McCain being “infinitely better informed”? Please. McCain “mistakenly” conflates Al Qaeda and Iran, what, 3 or 4 times at least? Anyone making that kind of mistake obviously doesn’t know much about what’s going on over there. Either that or he’s lying through his teeth. And what about his self-proclaimed super safe stroll through that Baghdad market last year? You remember the one- with the bulletproof vest…the 100 troops…the attack helicopters…yep, safe all right! He sure does know what he’s talking about!

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 8:13 pm ¶

8. Stephen wrote:

   David,

   If we invaded & occupied, oh say, Tunisia tomorrow, soon, as a consequence of that invasion and the local resistance, there would be some resistance group calling itself “AQT.”

   Would you then say, “See? AQ is so in Tunisia?”

   This ‘thru-the-looking-glass’ illogic of the war supporters is absolutely maddening. Please don’t go there.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 8:21 pm ¶

9. David C. wrote:

   Trying to conflate the homegrown Sunni insurgents who call themselves “AQI” with the AQ of Bin Laden, the Taliban, in Afghan/Pak is not worthy of you.

   What are you talking about? You think Al Qaeda in Iraq isn’t part of Al Qaeda? They can only be in one place at a time? No foreign fighters crossed the border into Iraq since the invasion I guess. What about all the statements by Al Qaeda referencing their struggle in Iraq? I guess we should just ignore them and pretend that only the Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan & Pakistan matter.

   David C., stop trying so hard to be ignorant. Of course Obama knows Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Such a willfully foolish statement doesn’t require any more comment.

   Yeah, so Obama’s website doesn’t actually mean what it says. It seems you are the one being willfully ignorant.

   If we invaded & occupied, oh say, Tunisia tomorrow, soon, as a consequence of that invasion and the local resistance, there would be some resistance group calling itself “AQT.”

   Of course Al Qaeda would have nothing to do with that either. They wouldn’t organize in the chaos of Tunisia and bring in fighters from throughout the Muslim world (like they did in Iraq).

   This ‘thru-the-looking-glass’ illogic of the war supporters is absolutely maddening. Please don’t go there.

   Seriously, you can’t be accusing me of illogic if you are actually trying to pretend that there are no Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

   Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 9:04 pm ¶

10. 46&2 wrote:

    Yeah, so Obama’s website doesn’t actually mean what it says. It seems you are the one being willfully ignorant.

    Here’s the entire section you’re referring to:
    “Bringing Our Troops Home

    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

    Obama will start withdrawing our troops. If al Qaeda’s still trying to establish a base in Iraq as we’re leaving/after we’ve left, we’ll strike. Makes sense when you read the entire section as a whole instead of just cherry picking.

    And did you miss this exchange at the end of February between McCain and Obama?
    ” McCAIN: I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda — it’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

    Sure does seem like Obama knows there’s an al Qaeda in Iraq, eh? You can make an argument that Obama’s approach to al Qaeda in Iraq is wrong, but to charge that he doesn’t even know they’re operating in Iraq is simply intellectually dishonest.

    Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 11:30 pm ¶

11. Grim wrote:

    “That’s why it’s called a “quagmire,” i.e. something you cannot get out of easily.”

    There are many things one cannot get out of easily that are still worth doing. Military service is one of those things, in fact; marriage is another.

    The mere fact that you cannot morally walk away from a commitment does not mean the commitment is bad. It may be the only way you can create a good, or avoid an evil, when it would otherwise be impossible.

    “One to two brigades a month” is a massive amount of combat power — we control everything from Anbar to the Iranian border, and from the southern skirts of Baghdad to beyond Al Hillah and Al Kut, with only four. (These are currently the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne; and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th BCTs of the 3rd Infantry Division.) So if this month we’re going to remove “one brigade,” and it’s 4/3, you’re not just talking about a total withdrawal from Iskandariyah — but from Babil province, which includes several other cities as well; plus a good part of Wasit province; and the remaining advisory forces we have in Karbala and Najaf provinces.

    That’s just one brigade, but its hundreds of square miles and several such cities as Iskandariyah.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 12:56 am ¶

12. David C. wrote:

    Sure does seem like Obama knows there’s an al Qaeda in Iraq, eh?

    From that yes, but not from the website. And by the way, in my opinion that’s a first-class, well-organized website that refutes arguments that Obama doesn’t have any concrete ideas and that he’s all just hot air. Yet the website, in the section you quoted, specifically says:

    if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq

    Since as you point out, he acknowledges that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq then this statement makes no sense. Al Qaeda is already in Iraq. So he should either change his website to reflect that, or change his position on withdrawals. According to the website his position should be to keep troops in Iraq, not to begin withdrawing them.

    Obama’s stated position is to begin withdrawing troops. So in actual fact, he is going to withdraw troops regardless of the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Therefore the issue position on his website is either deliberately dishonest or it is incorrect, and it should be changed to reflect his actual policy stance.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 8:51 am ¶

13. Redhand wrote:

    This one, horrific gaffe about the basic players in Iraq is all the persuading I need that McCain is (to be gentle) “past his prime,” and not a serious Presidential candidate. He ignorance about the region, and who “the enemy” is there, is on a par with Bush’s. He’s hopeless.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 9:14 am ¶

14. David C. wrote:

    This one, horrific gaffe

    You mean the minor error that may not actually be an error at all right? You do know that there is intelligence that suggests that elements within Iran may be supporting multiple factions within Iraq, including Sunni ones? The situation in Iraq is far from neat and tidy with clearly drawn lines and well-defined groups whose connections are all plainly obvious. McCain is probably better aware of this then either of the other candidates, who present only simplistic ideas like withdrawing troops for the sake of withdrawing them.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 9:58 am ¶

15. canuckistani wrote:

    You mean the minor error that may not actually be an error at all right? You do know that there is intelligence that suggests that elements within Iran may be supporting multiple factions within Iraq, including Sunni ones? The situation in Iraq is far from neat and tidy with clearly drawn lines and well-defined groups whose connections are all plainly obvious. McCain is probably better aware of this then either of the other candidates, who present only simplistic ideas like withdrawing troops for the sake of withdrawing them.

    If he’s on top of all the facts and all the complexities we don’t get, why did he meekly allow Joe Leiberman to correct him? No, I think cluelessness or worse is at play here. But notice I didn’t say “senile”. That would be wrong.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 10:25 am ¶

16. Stephen wrote:

    David,

    Your argument here means that Lieberman was wrong when he corrected McCain, and McCain was wrong when he back-tracked, and the McCain’s campaign statement that he had been corrected was wrong.

    Is that the official “David C” position?

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 11:10 am ¶

17. David C. wrote:

    Your argument here means that Lieberman was wrong when he corrected McCain, and McCain was wrong when he back-tracked, and the McCain’s campaign statement that he had been corrected was wrong.

    Is that the official “David C” position?

    Of course Lieberman could be wrong. How is he somehow the ultimate authority on what’s going on in Iraq? My position is that we don’t know the full extent of Iran’s activities with regard to Iraq, and that there is evidence suggesting that McCain was correct. Therefore the idea that McCain made some sort of terrible gaffe is ridiculous. A McCain advisor says today:

    “There is ample documentation that Iran has provided many different forms of support to Sunni extremists, including Al Qaeda as well as Shi’ia extremists in Iraq. It would require a willing suspension of disbelief to deny Iran supports Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

    The whole article is here

    Obama’s advisor even admits that they are “not saying Iran and Al Qaeda have never worked together.” Instead they claim that “there is no body of evidence to suggest Iran is aiding Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Which sounds a lot like doubletalk. Apparently there is some evidence (some of which is mentioned in the article), and they are choosing to ignore it in order to launch this feeble attack on McCain.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 11:40 am ¶

18. Grim wrote:

    It is rather a rather foolish debate. McCain probably honestly confused the terms he wanted to use; we’ve had our first couple of hot days here these last few days, and the heat plays tricks with your brain until you get used to it (and learn to hydrate properly).

    Meanwhile, I would love to hear an Obama supporter explain how “a brigade or two a month” is meant to be a measured, controllable pace of withdrawal. For that matter, I would like to have some reason to believe their candidate knew exactly what a brigade was; or just how our Brigade Combat Teams differ from Iraqi Army brigades, which are of the traditional type; or any of a host of other basic information that I can find no reason to believe Obama has ever had occasion to learn.

    Surely he has thought deeply about other things; I don’t mean to imply that he isn’t intelligent or well-educated or curious. Perhaps he will find an advisor I can trust, and promise to heed his counsel — but Tony McPeak, his current choice, is not that man. Gen. McPeak advocates a genuinely immoral kind of war, one I want no part of; and I don’t think Obama knows enough to understand that heeding that advisor will leave him with a military incapable of waging a Just War.

    Which would leave him with two choices: wage no wars, or wage unjust ones. McPeak’s own statements pre-Iraq War — to whit, that he was all for it, as long as we only bombed the place into ruin and did nothing to go in on the ground and rebuild it — do not encourage me.

    Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 2:57 pm ¶

19. canuckistani wrote:

    Flubbing once is a mistake, and an understandable one. Flubbing three times -on a pretty big error- a casus belli kind of error - until Joe Leiberman needs to correct you is getting beyond a simple mistake and raises doubts about his competence and self-proclaimed expertise.
    I was going to throw in a snarky cheap shot at McCain as well, but I am *so* grateful to hear a substantive, intelligent criticism of Obama that I’ll forgo that.
    I don’t agree with your premise or conclusions, but I appreciate you raising the tone of the debate around here.

    Posted 21 Mar 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶

20. Grim wrote:

    You’re welcome.

    Coincidentally, I see Gen. McPeak is in the news today. Sadly, it isn’t because people want to debate his vision of the proper role for military development.

    An oddity, by the way: Obama’s speech on Defense policy suggested that one of his major concerns was with what he saw as extreme costs implied by the quadrienniel defense review. Normally, people who are in favor of paring technology purchases don’t choose an Air Force advisor. McPeak’s school runs to the very high-priced side of precision weapons, stealth aircraft, and so forth.

    McPeak’s advice on that point runs counter to Obama’s stated policy, which is fine; it isn’t McPeak who is running for President. But it makes me wonder how much Obama is actually listening to his military advisor, and how much he is just using the General to provide himself with cover on the question of experience. Given his own lack of experience, I’d think he’d be paying close attention to his advisor as a counterbalance and learning tool when forming his policy; but the evidence is that he’s relying on his own judgment.

    Again, that’s fine — he’s the one running for President — but it makes an issue of his inexperience. As a voter, I’d be prepared to consider, “It’s true that I lack a military background or long experience at the Federal level; but I have good advisors, whose combined experience will guide me to wise policy.” That is not what we are seeing, though.

    Posted 22 Mar 2008 at 9:39 am ¶