Thursday, December 07, 2006

Iraq Study: Some Good, Some Bad Ideas

The Iraq Study Group has done it's job and has released it's recommendations. It will obviously take some time to read it all. However, some of the ideas which have been brought out via the media are good ideas, while others are very, very bad ideas! The worst being the suggestion to "talk" with Iran and Syria about Iraq!

Establishing timetables for withdrawal isn't a good idea, either. President Bush has mentioned that fact many times. However, it sounds like a good idea to get the Iraqi government moving faster and have the Iraqi soldiers do most of the work in the combat areas. Training needs to be stepped up. But realizing that new Iraqi officers needed to be trained explains why this particular portion of the mission has taken so long.

What is good to hear is the fact that President Bush has been correct all along. A rapid exit from Iraq (a failed "strategy" that would be encouraged by the likes of Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA AND WAS ENTIRELY REJECTED BY THE STUDY GROUP!

In her latest article, Ann Coulter had the best analogy:

The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.*

[*Note: See comment below that explains the historical significance of this statement.]

In her commentary, Ann discusses how in a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer pestered President Bush by aggressively questioning him about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

You need to read the entire article, but these excerpts give you an idea of how ridiculous the left's constant harping on revealing any terrorist interrogation techniques really is:

President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."

While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.

"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"

In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.

[Log flume ride? Wheee! Heat the water, though!]

Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Quran and a couple of chocolate eclairs.

Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use ... if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of -- between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?

There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaida's end-of-season office party last year.

I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?

Now that they're our new best friends, how about we turn to Iran and Syria for help on our interrogation techniques?

There are 127 comments about the article. Here are a few really good ones:

Marc of CA writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 12:00 AM
Fools in Charge
Today it was confirmed that the Iraq Study or Survey Group tells us, and the World, we need to 'engage' Iran about Iraq security.

How stupid can we get? My goodness these people are idiots!

Now Iran can boast that the US cannot control the violence in Iraq, we will not support Iraq until they gain strength and most deadly; Iran must come to the rescue! Iran is more powerful and wise than America! The Infidel is Inferior! Allah Is Great!!



What planet are we on here?

Bush made mistakes in Iraq, (not that he was elected to be the great war hero in the first place), but he is correct in the main focus; getting an indepentent government in the middle of the Middle East who does not hate democracy, in particular, the U.S..

And again I bring up the point that the revenue from the Iraq oil fields could finance terrorism for a lifetime and can certainly afford to buy Nukes.

If we abondon Iraq we should fulfill the wacky claims of the Leftists that we did this for the oil. Control the oil fields and sales and give the money back to the Iraqi people for whatever they want, except WMD's.


badbassplayer writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 1:54 AM
Surrender This!
It is nothing less than criminal that the dems are advocating our surrender and defeat to a third world country the size of California. Apparently they have everyone convinced that we can't defeat some pissant little sewer in the desert.

Is that how far that they have gone destroying our military, national security, patriotism, and most of all, our pride in being a strong and free country? Obviously dem control of education has left a generation with no knowledge of history.

Treasonous is too kind of a description for this behaivior.

Maybe we should send a big dem delegation over to Iran on a Friday afternoon to try to negotiate with these savages that they support and wish to surrender to..


jerubaal writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:37 AM
Not That You ALL Didn't Know This
*But in 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a secret agreement called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It defined the spheres of territory that Germany and the USSR would own after a succesful Third Reich conquest of Poland, and it included a bit more than just Poland, namely, the Balkan states. All non-German inhabitants in the German area were expelled to the Soviets.


MacZed writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:43 AM
Means sacrificing your moral ideals for the sake of a moddled mediocrity and failure that we can hold as a new moral imperative in the Politically Correct Media Kaleidescope of insanity.

We will call this muddled mediocrity "The Public Opinion"

And we will hold our Presidents and Politicians to these Gray goals of irrationality developed with zero education and even less intel on reality of world affairs.

When we decide to cop out to Death...this Civilization makes the Roman Civilization look like survivors extraordinaire.

Note, this Bipartisan Commission is just a study group...nothing more - the President is a Lame Duck now - he will not give a rat's testes for the opinions...why should he? They are absurd...

Talk to Syria? Right, sure. To what, sellout Israel by trading The Golan Heights and Jerusalem for a year of Peace? Dust off the Nobel and wait for the Atomic Fallout over Damascus and Tehran...that is, don't hold your breath.

Talk to Iran? To what, figure out how far over the couch we need to metaphorically bend to take the Islamic Phallus of Oil Raping for a decade? Are we just hoping for $5 per gallon gas?

Are we hoping for a 3,000 point drop in the stock market in a one month span of time?

These men of this bipartisan commission are the most deluded dolts of archaic history ever to be dug up since Jimmy Carter was somehow unmuzzled at the beginning of the Hezbollah conflict this summer to tag team Bush with Colin Powell and the McCain Warner betrayal...quick, someone Muzzle that crazy sob.

The Soros Gambit to end the War on Terror is rapidly being realized...

Phase 1) Destroy the Moral Highground of the United States, the most philanthropic, freedom fighting country in the history of the Planet...

Phase 2) Deprive America of a Wartime Leader. Bye Rummy...Hello Gates...

Get ready for the Impeachment of Cheney - it can't miss...Pelosi will be VP by Default by November Elections of 2008 mark my words.

We are now officially in the Downward Spiral of Fascism's venemous pull.

[Whew! That was scary!]


jerubaal writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:44 AM
"Bravo, Ann. Not only are we at war; we're at war with a fundamentally cowardly enemy that has disavowed the rules of war between civilized states."

And that's just the DEMOCRATS! Wait till you see the terrorists we have to fight!

[Well...not ALL Democrats! We still have some patriots like Joe Lieberman around...]


moses writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 7:20 AM
syria and iran are enemies not friends
doesn't anyone see that syria and iran are enemies and not friends of either democracy or the US. engaging them is like saying " let's just hold hands and sing kumbaya and we'll all feel better and be friends." sorry not everything is like a Disney movie. this is just sheer stupidity.
let's face it. it appears that the only way that the Left will be happy with war is if no one gets hurt, including feelings. can't have anyone have their feelings hurt or lose their self esteem.
if we want to win, we need to focus on those that are out to kill us, iran and syria. we need to stop the rearming of the insurgents from these countries.
it appears that the new congress and the ISG are willing to surrender now so that the situation gets worse (iran gets nuclear weapons and takes out israel) so that we have real casualties in our military. the democrats never liked the military anyway. best way to exterminate them is in a nuclear conflict with iran. oh and of course a democrat would not retaliate in kind with nukes. that would be lowering ourselves to their level. if we did that, (gasp) we would actually win a war. we can't have that.

[The nuke idea might be going a bit too far...but if Iran succeeds in completing enrichment and we just "let it happen," it might be necessary some day...but I hope not.]


Mr. Right writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 7:55 AM
The libs scare me
Allen, Kimberly, Red Tooth, hosekuervo and others scare the crap out of me. What we have in the Middle East is a group of radicals whose only goal is to destroy Western Civilization. You cannot negotiate with them, you cannot reason with them. You can only destroy them. Which negotiating tool would be effective with an enemy for whom death is a promotion? The only thing this enemy understands is total humiliation and destruction. That is required to get their attention and only after that can you begin to talk to the survivors. Democracy will work in the Middle East but only if coupled with Free Market Capitalism.

In the meantime, in this country we have libs whose only enemy seems to be Bush and the conservatives. Apparently someone telling you that abortion is murder while allowing clinics to perform abortions under the auspices of the Supreme Court is more dangerous than someone slitting your throat for not having your wife and daughter shrouded in a burka. The lack of rational thought scares me. The lack of focus on who the enemy is and what constitutes a real threat to our country and way of life is terrifying. Yes, our troops are in harm's way and it is terrible that any of these fine young men and women are lost in any war. But we have trained them and equipped them to kill people and destroy evil and then sit back here in the safety of our coffee shops and wonder if they haven't committed a war crime by being too harsh when we don't have a clue what they are facing. We do need to change course in Iraq. We need to commit every troop over there to a search and destroy mission to clean out every terrorist cell. Their destruction needs to be complete and humiliating so that little tinpot dictators in Syria and Iran and Hezbollah understand the result of trying to destroy freedom and freedom-loving people. We need to unleash Israel (whose greatest crime in terms of the Middle East is properity and freedom for its citizens) and allow her to destroy Palestinian opposition to the already generous offers that have been made. Complete and utter victory is the only solution in the Middle East.

[The libs are a misguided say the least!]


Icedog writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 8:22 AM
What history?
Libs do not like comparisons to WWII (or any historical events whatsoever) because they are incapable of comprehending that we can actually learn from our past.

In order to be a liberal you must awaken each day as if it is the first day of human existence.

Only someone with absolutely no memory of yesterday (liberals) would believe:

- Appeasement of our enemies is a successful strategy
- Giving everyone equal rewards regardless of effort (socialism/liberalism) is good for society
- The amount of money you take from your citizens is directly proportional to the success of the economy
- Milder criminal sanctions leads to less crime
- Unlawful discrimination can be eliminated by increasing legal discrimination
- Eliminating all values and ethical standards leads to a better society

History has demonstrated repeatedly – usually with tragic and horrendous results – that these are all failed philosophies.

To be a liberal you must be so egotistical as to believe you are smarter than the previous hundreds of generations and billions of people – or you have to be stuck in some bizarre and twisted version of the movie “Groundhog Day”.

[Serious points on serious subjects. But I just had to laugh at the "Groundhog day" comment...heh heh]


eon writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 8:28 AM
And just for points
People like Mondamay (nice Zelazny ref, there!) may be irritated by comparisons to World War Two, but unfortunately such comparisons are in fact the only ones which are valid.

World War Two was a global conflict fought by democracies (and, after June 1941, one dictatorship) against enemies with a militaristic, collectivist, anti-reason, anti-Semitic and anti-Western Enlightenment philosophy. (Germany wanted a return to mythic Germanism; Italy wanted a return to mythic Romanism; and Japan wanted a return to mythic imperialism under the Shintoist faith.) All of the three fully intended to conquer and rule vast sections of the world, wherein they would treat the natives as little more than slaves, forcing them to work for and/or pay tribute to their new rulers. Unless the locals were Jewish, Romany, black, or Christian (especially in the Far East); such "inferiors" were to be eradicated.

The present war is essentially the same thing, against an enemy with almost precisely the same philosophy and objectives. (If you don't believe the Islamists are racist toward Africans, and hate Christians as much as they do Jews, I'd suggest you don't look too closely at Darfur. Your eyes might not like what they see. Oh, and BTW, they don't like animists, either.)

The fundamental difference between World War Two and World War Three (which is now underway) is that this time around, the enemy has spent more time preparing. There are still some gaps in their TO&E, mainly in the area of strategic weapons and delivery systems, but they are working very hard to rectify this. (And unlike the [people you are not supposed to mention in these debates] they are not turning up their noses at nuclear physics on the grounds that it is "Jewish science".) So far, their unconventional (asymmetric) warfare tactics have provided them with a less-than-satisfactory substitute; they can, and have, inflicted casualties, but so far, they have yet to defeat their enemies (us) decisively. Anywhere.

What is going on now equates to a peculiar cross between the "Phony War" of October 1939-May 1940, with overtones of the period of the "anschluss" and Munich(1936-38) in Europe, and the Japanese conquest of Korea and Manchuria (or "Chosen" and "Manchukuo" as they insisted on misnaming them) in the 1932-37 time frame. As yet, the primary enemy states (Iran, Syria) and their non-governmental allies (various Islamist groups) have yet to take the field in open warfare. (Mainly because for the last half-century, every time they have, they've been defeated in no uncertain terms.) The logical conclusion is that they will not do so until they have a trump card that will prevent or dissuade the enemy (us) from committing conventional forces against them.

Nuclear weapons are such a trump card. And they are openly pursuing their development.

Once they have them, all bets will be off.

Should we negotiate with Iran and Syria? Not at this juncture. We would simply be repeating the colossal stupidity of the European powers (England and France) in 1936-38, and the United States in the Far East in 1937-41. Negotiations will only be appropriate if, as, and when we have the aforementioned regional powers in the position we had Germany and Japan in in 1945. At which point, our demands should be reduced to two words; unconditional surrender.

But so far, I have seen no evidence that anyone in the halls of power, in any party, has grasped the seriousness of the situation. I find myself wondering how many casualties we will have to suffer, and what kind, and where, it will take for them to recognize the reality of the threat we face.


[I think that Bush does get the reality of the threat we face. Trouble is, many of the RINOS and the liberal Dems don't! Hopefully, the more moderate to conservative "freshman" Dems do get it! How refreshing that would be!]


There are probably many more good ones that I could list, but eon's comment is a good one to end this post!


Minor Ripper said...

great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:

Stephen said...

I think it's a mistake to compare waterboarding to a ride at a theme park.

Also, I think Ann Coulter is not a valid source for informed commentary.

Christinewjc said...

To the ripper,

So? Ann made an error regarding whether or not Canada sent troops to Vietnam. She admitted that she should check her facts. Maybe she decided not to 'get back to' that interviewer knowing his entire purpose was to rip her to shreds.

Are you perfect ripper-man? I doubt it...

But keep supporting Al Gored at your blogspot so everyone knows what an anti-American, anti-troops, Bush-hating, Blair disparaging, Christian bashing, pro-porn, left-wing loonie you really are!

P.S. Read chapter 7 of Bill O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior." S-P's like you are described in all the horrific detail that they deserve! Hmmm...I should make that chapter my next blogpost!!

limpy99 said...

Ann Coulter usually has problems with things like "facts", "documentation", "reality" and "correctly reporting what actually happened", but there's no point in debating her veractiy here. If you want to believe her, go ahead. her lies are coming back to haunt her, however.

One point of correction, and I beleive it's just a typo on your part but its an important one. The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement concerned Poland and the BALTIC states, not the Balkans. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia would be peeved at such an error.

I can certainly see where people would disagree with engaging Syria and Iran over the Iraq issue, but to me the alternative is worse. An unlimited engagement for our military in Iraq and a probable escalation of forces as the civil war increases in violence. What we're doing now in Iraq is not working. A new effort is required, and that may mean talking with people we don't like. Many of the comments you quoted were interesting in that their authors seem to equate such an action with admitting defeat. Well, what we're doing now won't equate to any kind of victory, just a long, and bloody, stalemate.

At this point there is no real Iraqi government. The Kurds in the north have set up their own government and are pretty set on their long-time goal of independence. The Shiites, who ostensibly have the power in the central government, seem more inclined to listen to firebrands such as Al-Sadr, (and I'm sure he's taking orders and/or aid from Iran), and the Sunnis, in additon to getting what's probably a well-deserved ass-kicking from the Shiites, have the most to lose and are getting aid from Syria and other countries, including Saudi Arabia.

There are two possibilities at this point. There's the utter lunacy of the Ann Coulters of the world, essentially calling for a new crusade in which we use our military to remake the Middle East in our image. Sure, we'd win the war, I have no doubt about that. But we'd have to commit to a tremendous loss of life on our part, a bitter and protracted follow-up occupation where our troops would make fine targets for an enraged and fanatical remaining population, a devastating destruction of the infrastructure of the entire region, which would in turn devastate our economy as oil prices soar, (and incidentally if you don't think that would piss off China and India and strengthen Russia you're not keeping up with current events), and lord knows what else.

OR, we could suck it up, acknowledge that what we're doing isn't working, (notice I'm not even citing the fact that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place), (Oops, just did), and start talking to all of the interested parties in the region. That means Iran on the Shiites and Syria, the Saudis and anyone else on the Sunnis, Turkey on the Kurds and Israel just to make sure everyone has someone besides the US to hate on.

Talking doesn't mean caving in. Talking can, and should, mean going in and saying that we're willing to accept this, listening to what the other side is willing to accept, (short of the total destruction of Israel), and then working together to find a middle ground that might, might, MIGHT, resolve things without someone going for the cleansing power of the atom sometime in the next decade.

Then we'll have enough troops for the invasion of North Korea.

ebsfwan said...

I agree with you that the suggestion to engage with Syria and Iran about Iraq is pie in the sky stuff. Why would either of those nations decide that they should help the US dig itself out of it's mess? Do we really want to be engaging with a nut like the President of Iran?

While I was dropping my wife off at work this morning I was thinking about the situation in Iraq. Would America have been better off to not invade? Saddam is an evil man but he crushed the religious extremists rather ruthlessly. Ironically he has just been sentenced to death for employing the means that are necessary to put down an insurrection.

I think that as soon as America withdraws the civil war in Iraq will really take off and we'll probably end up with a theocracy who hates the West which will probably be a greater danger than Saddam ever was.
I read something in the paper the other day. An Iranian minister of some sort was saying that America is Iran's greatest ally - look at it's actions. It has gotten rid of Iran's 2 biggest enemies - Saddam in Iraq and the Taleban in Afghanistan.
And why is it that if someone offers an alternative to something that is clearly not working they are labelled as treasonous and pro-terrorist? It baffles me. We are never right all the time. It seems that people are no longer allowed to question things. Sigh.
As for Ann Coulter some food for thought:
Ann Coulter & Peter Fenn, Crossfire, CNN, November 23, 2001
FENN: Let me ask you one very simple question. You have written, and I quote, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
COULTER: Yeah, that was a good one.
FENN: Now, I just have one very simple question. Who is “they”?
COULTER: The sentence before that sentence says who they are. And that is the terrorists, the people cheering and dancing in the street.
FIEGER: Convert them to Christianity?
COULTER: The ones we happen to be killing right now. Thank God for the Green Berets.
FIEGER: What’s the difference between you and bin Laden?

Stephen said...

"But keep supporting Al Gored at your blogspot so everyone knows what an anti-American, anti-troops, Bush-hating, Blair disparaging, Christian bashing, pro-porn, left-wing loonie you really are!"

Christine, such statements are wrong, inflammatory and unnecessary.

Doug said...

Great work, Christine!

As for Gore, Oprah said he's "our Noah"... now there's an ark I don't want to be on. You'd be aboard with two of each species of demagogue.

Thanks, Oprah, but I'll take my chances in the rowboat.

Christinewjc said...


You included a lot of points and I'll try to address most of them.

Thanks for the correction re: the Baltic states. I will correct it in the blogpost (with credit to you, of course!) after posting this comment.

I realize that Ann Coulter is a divisive figure in the political world. She can be quite brash, too. But there are points that she makes that I happen to agree with.

The idea that talks with Iran or Syria is just plain silly, imo. Today, I heard that Sen. McCain, Sen. Lieberman, plus many callers into C-Span's Washington Journal show think the same way about that suggestion.

On that same show, I learned that one of Saddam Hussein's top regime operatives (can't recall the name) is still running around in Iraq wrecking havoc. The other problem, as you mentioned, is Sadr and what to do with him and his militias. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Al Maliki want to try to negotiate some kind of truce with Sadr so that he would stop the militia attacks? I have also heard that Sadr has killed many people and deserves to be arrested, jailed and tried. But doing so might lead to more unrest and instability. Sounds like a catch-22 to me.

The Kurds are the most peaceful among the bunch. Could I be so bold as to say that this is because many are Christians?

It would be nice if the warring factions could drop their arms, join into a unity government while establishing individual states (like Kurdistan, etc.) and live peaceably with each other. But old hatreds die hard...after all, we had our own civil war in the U.S. now didn't we?

You said, "OR, we could suck it up, acknowledge that what we're doing isn't working, (notice I'm not even citing the fact that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place), (Oops, just did), and start talking to all of the interested parties in the region."

Ha ha ha! You just couldn't resist! It has always been the left's primary mantra...kinda like Al Gore and his ilk who still can't get over the 2000 election.

Limpy, do you really think that Iran's leader, Imafordejihad is someone that our government officials and diplomats could ever reason with? Sorry NO! It would be like trying to reason with Hitler, Stalin or Saddam! Once a madman, always a madman!

I don't see any willing Arab nations there. We had hoped that Iraq would one day become an ally on the war against terrorism. But it's taking much longer than anyone predicted.

Nation building takes many years. History has shown this to be true. It is one of the chief reasons that Bush 41 didn't go into Baghdad after the first Gulf War. They let a madman fester and continue to kill and corrupt (e.g. Oil for Food U.N. scandal). No wonder the U.N. was sending out 17 resolutions against Iraq while wanting to avoid any actions against him! Their greedy and corrupt "ambassadors" would lose their money-grubbing scheme! Ahhh! Don't even let me get started on that disgusting thing!!

Since I have heard only certain parts in the report, I still need to read the whole thing to make a complete evaluation about it.

One caller on the C-Span show mentioned that the ISG Report did not address the fact that there is 50% unemployment in Iraq. He said that if that was the situation in the U.S., we would have chaos here, too. Good point. Now, I wonder (because I haven't read it yet) if the commission even thought of including possible solutions to that additional problem.

We see that many Iraqi men are joining the military and police forces. They are the best paying jobs in town. But what about creating other jobs? Are there envoys going over helping to create jobs in the less violent zones? I need to read up on that. (Send me links if anyone has found some good articles on that.)

You said, "Talking doesn't mean caving in. Talking can, and should, mean going in and saying that we're willing to accept this, listening to what the other side is willing to accept, (short of the total destruction of Israel), and then working together to find a middle ground that might, might, MIGHT, resolve things without someone going for the cleansing power of the atom sometime in the next decade."

Dear Limpy! If we lived in a fantasy world like Oz, your idea to "talk, compromise, and resolve things" might sound feasible. In the real world, however, we must face facts. The Arab world does not want Israel, a democratic, Jewish nation, in the Middle East. Period. We could talk to all sides until we are blue in the face...IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

When I have time, later today, I am going to post some of O'Reilly's chapter 7 in his "Culture Warrior" book. It will vividly explain to you and others, why the secular-progressive worldview on this will not, and cannot work.

I'm with you on the avoidance of using nuclear power to resolve this. I'm also with you on not letting this war be a failure for the U.S. and her allies for the sakes of our children and grandchildren.

The one thing that I DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN is for another "John Kerry Vietnam" cut and run job:

From Atlas Shrugs blogspot: "The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by John Kerry with helping him achieve victory. Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S."

HT: Swift Vets and POW's for Truth

Christinewjc said...

Stephen W. said:

"Christine, such statements are wrong, inflammatory and unnecessary."

Have you visited his blog? Go read the blogposts over there and see whether or not he deserved such labels.

Christinewjc said...


America isn't going to withdraw abruptly with President Bush in charge as decision maker. I just hope and pray that when the Democratic majority gets into Congress, they don't make matters worse. There are so many ways that it could get worse, too.

The 2008 Presidential election will be crucial in what will ultimately happen in Iraq. If a namby-pamby secular progressive democrat gets in there, what you predicted would probably come true, with the exception that such a leader may not be as ruthless as Saddam, but it will still be a haven for Al Quida terrorists.

You said, "I think that as soon as America withdraws the civil war in Iraq will really take off and we'll probably end up with a theocracy who hates the West which will probably be a greater danger than Saddam ever was."

Obviously, the exchange between Coulter and the newscasters was a set-up. I'd like to know what was said during the entire interview. But based on that last comment, the difference between Coulter and Bin Laden is that she wouldn't advocate targeting innocent civilians with suicide/homicide bombers, she would target them with the gospel of Christ.

Christinewjc said...

Looks like the Kurds are angry and their leader outrightly rejectsthe ISG recommendations.

This excerpt from the article surprised me a bit:

Barzani also:

Criticized the study group members for "failing to visit Iraqi Kurdistan," calling that "a major shortcoming that adversely influenced the credibility of the assessment."

I agree!

Let's see what else I agree with from that list:

Rejected the call for a review, with the help of U.N. experts, of the Iraqi constitution.

Didn't even know that was in it! Sounds unnecessary, to me.

Blasted a proposal to put "oil revenues under the power of the central government and redistribute it in accordance with the ratio of the population."

Sounds to me like if such an idea was proposed in the U.S., then NY, having a highly dense population, would get more revenue. Is that fair?

Opposed any delay in implementing a constitutional provision in regard to Kirkuk.

Not sure, at this point, what that's about.

Stated that Iraqis should look first to national reconciliation before the nation's problems are solved by others.

I agree! Especially when people are recommending that rogue countries like Iran and Syria should have their say!

Said the democratic progress of Iraq and Kurdistan should not be put aside, recalling previous elections and the country's constitution, which "received the support of more than 80 percent of the people in Iraq."

Was such a thing recommended in the ISG report??? That's certainly a terrible idea!!!

Barzani said he would urge "all Iraqi groups, who believe in the political process, the constitution and a democratic federal Iraq, to take radical steps to solve these problems so that they can be freed from the solutions of the wrong recommendations of the regional and international countries."

I agree!

The more that I am finding out about the ISG report, then less I like it...

Christinewjc said...

Thanks Doug!

Oprah really said that about Gore? Sheesh! I knew she lived in a kind of spiritual oblivion and was a Deepak Choprah fan, but Al Gore is her "Noah"?


Got room in that rowboat?

limpy99 said...

Christine said "Dear Limpy! If we lived in a fantasy world like Oz, your idea to "talk, compromise, and resolve things" might sound feasible. In the real world, however, we must face facts."

I doubt you've seen the HBO show "Oz", but if you have you'd know why I just shuddered.

At any rate, your comment set me to thinking, again, and after the hamster fell off the wheel and my thoughts eased, I felt I should respon. You and I seem to approach things from a different view. You look at things from a very strict moral perspective. If the Bible says it must be so, then darnit, it must be so. I am not to question the Lord, I am to carry it out. This seems to carry over into your view of politics. Whatever position you take must be the right one; there is no room for compromise.

I don't look at things that way. I try to look at things realistically. Certainly you should feel free to use your own adjective there, but I'm writing this, so I'm using "realistically". I look at a problem and try to see what solution will work the best. Ideally I want the solution that most favors my position; that's human nature. But if I can't have that solution because it's impossible, I'll look for another way to resolve the issue.

I don't for a minute advocate talking to Iran and Syria because I think that they're great guys and trustworthy. I think we have to include them in any regional talks because, well, they're part of the region. What we are doing now, fighting an endless and boundary-less war with no clear end in sight, hasn't worked and isn't going to work. You may respond that we, as a country, need to buckle down and work even harder, and by that mean we need to escalate our military involvement. Fine. Let's say we cruh the Shiites in the south and the Sunni insurgency in the west. Then what? Who governs? How many troops do we keep there? It's 60 years after WWII and we still have troops in Germany, AND THEY LIKE US!!! It's 50 years after we fought in Korea and we not only have troops in South Korea, but North Korea has nukes! Imagine how long we'd have to keep troops in an area filled to the brim by a people who absolutely hate us. That isn't going to happen. So what do we do?

I don't have a problem with looking to other countries in the region to help. Even the icky ones. At the least it may improve our image in thw world and perhaps restore some support in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. It may allow us to point out that Syrian and Iran aren't interested in resolving the problems, but here we are trying, and perhaps get other countries to start pointing fingers at them instead of us. It might even lead to a complete breakthrough and achive peace in the Middle East, but I'll probably win Powerball twice before that happens. Or it could be a complete and craptacular failure. But at least someone will have tried.

The point I'm trying to make is that you see things in black and white, good or bad. Your way has to prevail, or evil will result. I don't see it that way. I accpet that I may be wrong, that my solution might not be the best. I'm willing to listen, and if someone's got a better idea I'll shake their hand.

Couple other quick comments. Coulter wasn't set up. She wrote those idiotic comments and hasn't backed off of them. They express a view similar to that we all deplore from The Taliban. When those words get thrown back in her face, she's got no one to blame but herself. And incidentally, if she couldn't see that question coming, she's even dumber than I thought.

In your post about the Kurds, you weren't sure what was meant by the Kurds desire for a constitutional provision regarding Kirkuk. Here's the meat of it. Kirkuk is the largest city in northern Iraq and controls a region that has the largest oil reserves in the country. Back in the day, it was a Kurdish population center. Saddam Hussein forced Kurds out and Sunnis in in order to get more control over the oil wealth. Now the Kurds, whose area is just outside of Kirkuk, (but who are, I think, largely controlling it anyway), are trying to boot the Sunnis out, get the Kurds in, and they want a constitutional provision legitimizing it. That would allow them control of the northern oil reserves and add greatl to their ability to finance their autonomous region and, I suspect, finance independence eventually. You can imagine how popular this is with everyone else in Iraq.

Regarding that quot from Gen Giap. I've never seen that before and I don't know the legitimacy of it. I do know that the Vietnamese fought the Chinese for hundreds of years, the Japanese and French since WWI, and us for some ten years after that and never quit. I somehow doubt that they were on the verge of giving up on their quest for independence until they learned that Kerry was testifying before the Senate and decided to hang in there.

As always, an interesting discussion. Merry Christmas.

ebsfwan said...

Great response Limpy.

You've identified the fundamentalist's dilemma. They cannot question any part of their doctrine because questioning one part might lead them to question all.

This leads them to defend absurd positions at times. The problem then is that any temptation to face what you so eloquently termed 'reality' is a temptation to 'sin' in their worldview.

ebsfwan said...

Christine said "...but it will still be a haven for Al Quida terrorists."

Isn't it ironic that before the invasion there was no Al Quaeda in Iraq?

It's also ironic that the Taleban were beaten in Afghanistan...

Now they are back and Al Quaeda is in Iraq. Mission accomplished? Or is that a cheap shot?

Faultline USA said...

Great post! I agree with you that the liberals are totally out of touch with traditional American values – which don’t fit into their long-term socialist goals. I addressed some of these issues yesterday concerning the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report, with regard to those who will to forget the lessons of history, and I invite your comments.