Centerfield

Apostasy!

Okay, I browsed it all looking for the part where we build up our military presence in Iraq to the point we can "hold" what has already, repeatedly in some cases, been cleared.

By most accounts, the situation on the ground is worse now than a year ago. The consensus I'm hearing from all media is it will take substantially more troops to win a military victory even if more time is taken.

Regardless of what Joe says is strategically "new" in Iraq, his overall theme sounds terribly like "stay the course".

That is terrible.

By most accounts, the situation on the ground is worse now than a year ago. The consensus I'm hearing from all media is it will take substantially more troops to win a military victory even if more time is taken.

So then presumedly giving us 3 to 5 reliable sources (not including pundits' opinion columns) that are independent of one another should be no problem. But I do wonder, since I haven't heard this description (which you are describing as a consensus of all media) anywhere. And I read the paper every day.

I browsed it all looking for the part where we build up our military presence in Iraq to the point we can "hold" what has already, repeatedly in some cases, been cleared...The consensus I'm hearing from all media is it will take substantially more troops to win a military victory even if more time is taken.

Proof that you can't trust media for accurate news, and that preconceived notions are tough to shake. And that browsing is not the same as reading.

American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. --Leiberman

To be precise, 45 of the 130 Iraqi battalions are now at full operational status. That's up from 35 about six weeks ago. In addition Coalition forces have trained another 112K Iraqi police, security, and support forces for a total of 212K Iraqi troops and security and police forces. That number is looking to top out at a total of 325K by mid-2007. Iraqi troops have assumed control and manning of 16 forward operational bases from Coalition forces in the last few months. They have also assumed occupational control of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria, and the clearing of Ramadi is underway.

The number of Iraqi battalions at complete "battle space" independence was 5 in March, 24 about a month ago, and stands at 33 today.

Nope, no additional troops there!

The sad thing is that Leiberman could be elelcted president in 2008 but he would never get the nomination from the democrats.

The sad thing is that Lieberman could be Vice President right now, but he told Gore to concentrate on a few counties instead of urging him to recount the whole state of Florida.

That may well be true, Blue Jean (and it may well not be true-- the SCOTUS did rule on the issue, after all), but who is to say we should have to be satisfied with having to get Lieberman under Gore? Why shouldn't we be able to want a Lieberman in the White House without having to take the Gore?

Gore doesn't register on any of my lists of "Candidates That I Hope Run For President," but Lieberman is absolutely one of my Top Five candidates-- coincidentally, all of whom probably can't even get out of the primaries, let alone win the general election...

I've got a list like that myself.

Leiberman is a democrat who gets the big picture. Here is my favorite comment of his, "I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead."

Matt, that is indeed an awesome quote. Lieberman really gets it.

I've always liked Leiberman. I would have voted for him in 2000, but couldn't stomach the Gore side of the equation. His stance on Iraq is only a small part of his realistic nature.

That aside, I think it would be a terrible idea to put a Jew (no matter how moderate) in the White House given the preception problems we are facing in the mideast at present. A sad reflection of our times. --Premptive defense: 0.000% religious bias on my part.

Agreed. Huzzah for Joe Lieberman.

You can't trust Lieberman to find his own ass with both hands, why should anybrody trust him to recognize and understand the situation in Iraq?

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

via Atrios

All you center-right Lieberman fans here: Go and stomp for a moderate republican instead of hoping for a more important role for 'Joementum', who is nearly totally divorced from his own party. Lieberman is the next Zell Miller.

Joe Leiberman is trying to bring objectivity to the discussion of Iraq. Most Democrats are not.
Democrats are struggling to criticize President Bush while at the same time appearing to be patriotic. Being unpatriotic is a dilemma that most Democrats face during our attempt to stabilize Iraq. Most Democrats in the Senate and House are walking a fine line. On one hand they would like to hang the failures of the Iraq War around the Bush administration for purely political purposes. On the other hand, they must project an objective approach to resolving the Iraqi War that will meet with the approval of voters.

Since the UN, Clinton administration, and most prominent Democrats realized long ago that Saddam possessed WMD capabilities, and made statements to that fact, it is hard for Democrats to be too critical of the Iraq War. However, many Democrats who supported the war are now retracting and altering their statements. Democrats need to show some integrity on this issue. Or, the public will assume they are just scalawags looking for political traction.

Gray, I'm not getting where you yourself stand here. Why do you think Lieberman doesn't know what he's talking about, but the journalists in Baghdad do? Please advise.

Rest, I would have loved to see a McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2004.

BK, so would I, but that SOOOO could never happen... And to be even more brutally honest, let's face it: we don't deserve Lierberman or McCain in the White House. Both of them are too good to be our President.

Mild Mannered, that's a wonderfully concise, objective, and accurate description of the political background.

Gray, I'm not getting where you yourself stand here.

LOL. Brian, when someone starts off their "comment" by quoting insurgent cheerleader Michael Ware's rants from an Air America interview via Atrios, do you really need to ask where they stand? He stands in either Europe or the Bay Area of Cali, of course!

Tully, you're more widely versed on the ranks of the knuckleheads than I. :-)

Both the punctuation and the "morning sedition" crack confused me. The last bit of advice too. Thanks for clearing it up.

De nada. I cheated. He left a German email addy in his tag. :-)

Former Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s recent declaration that the extent of human rights abuses in Iraq is the “same” as under Saddam Hussein is a devastating indictment of all those, including Allawi himself....

***NOTE***

The remainder of this "comment" has been removed from this site by the thread originator for violation of "fair use" copyright provisions. The poster of this "comment" is neither the author of it nor the copyright holder. Those actually interested in reading this lengthy off-topic screed can find it here, at its site of original publication, the World Socialist Web Site.

The thread originator reserves the right to report such things to the proper authorities at the server of origin (in this case a public academic institution) as they rightly frown on the use of their systems for violating copyright law.

Sorry for the snip, folks. I have included the link to original publication, with correct attribution, if anyone's all that interested.

Tully;
Yea I followed the link. Of course I didn't expect a "nuanced" article from the Socialists but the article just begs the obvious question "And so the previous alternative was better?"

No folks, thats not meant to justify an intervention but I just have to ask it periodically.

Rants rarely recognize alternative scenarios, of course. That's why they're rants. This is only the second time I've edited someone's comment, and both edits were for the same reason. Don't post big chunks of copyrighted material you don't own. In this case it was a complete 2000-word article with no attribution at all, a straight and blatant plagiarism. When it's attributed (this one was not) I can at least assume the poster's not intentionally cheating. I'll still cut it from the site, but I'll link to the copyrighted source if I can so that people can read it if they're inclined. As I did here.

Not that I expect any respect for copyright or any other rights from someone who "signs" their posts with the name of an infamous violent anarchist.