Yet another epiphany

[blacbird]

'President Bush conceded Wednesday that the United States is taking heavy casualties in Iraq and said, "I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation" there.'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15411631/

caw

[DeniseK]

Yeah, I saw him today. He's a sharp one, that GW. I think he even gets it that nobody likes him.

[dclary]

I'd be willing to wager that every single person who ever fought in any OTHER war ever fought in the history of the entire earth would laugh in your face at your definition of "heavy casualties."

BTW... I just watched the press conference... Can YOU find the spot where he acknowledges "heavy casualties?" Because I can't. The AP invented that.

Media bias?

Or media ignorance?

Your call.

[blacbird]

I'd be willing to wager that every single person who ever fought in any OTHER war ever fought in the history of the entire earth would laugh in your face at your definition of "heavy casualties."

BTW... I just watched the press conference... Can YOU find the spot where he acknowledges "heavy casualties?" Because I can't. The AP invented that.

Media bias?

Or media ignorance?

Your call.

Wasn't my definition of heavy casualties. But the transcript of this press conference (which I didn't see), or a video of it, must be available somewhere. He said whatever he said.

caw.

[dclary]

Here is the exact quote (the ONLY reference to the word "heavy" in the entire speech. You tell me. (I acknowledged in my post that it was an AP creation, and not yours. Yet you chose to accept it on face value).


Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began. They've cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads, and uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars and powerful bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters have been killed or captured, and we've suffered casualties of our own. This month we've lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most since October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups, and criminals.



For those who are critical-reading-deficient (apparently everyone at the AP? Or are they biased?) "Heavy fighting" <> "Heavy casualties."

In the same manner "we've suffered casualties of our own" <> "we've suffered heavy casualties."

Neither I nor the president is denying that soldiers are dying, nor that their deaths should be honored, both for the loss of life and their sacrifice, but for God's sake, that's what soldiers DO in a war. They die. You don't complain about the loss of your woodpile when you burn a fire. You can't complain about the deaths of soldiers during a war. Especially when the number of men dying is so danged small.

[blacbird]

If we got the "Mission Accomplished" and were "greeted as liberators" back in 2003, why are any soldiers dying in Iraq in 2006?

caw.

[billythrilly7th]

I find this thread to be hateful and hyperbolic.

:)

[dclary]

If we got the "Mission Accomplished" and were "greeted as liberators" back in 2003, why are any soldiers dying in Iraq in 2006?

caw.

Perhaps in addition to not understanding what "heavy casualties" means, you also do not know the difference between a mission and a war? This is a common problem among journalists, too.

[blacbird]

In the case of the landing on the carrier, GWBush's "Mission Accomplished" meant that the photo-op looked dang good. And, I reiterate, the statement "heavy casualties" wasn't mine. Plus I suspect I know a good deal more than you do first-hand about what war and casualties are like.

Ultimately, the importance of casualties doesn't lie in the raw number, it lies in the accomplishment the price of those casualties purchased. If you need to know why the American public (including increasing numbers of Republicans and conservatives) is so unhappy about the war in Iraq, that's the equation you need to look at.

caw

[dclary]

Sometimes folks just need to be reminded of the costs of liberty.

[blacbird]

I feel so liberated.

caw

[dclary]

See? Was that so hard?

:D

[SC Harrison]

Sometimes folks just need to be reminded of the costs of liberty.

Tell that to the Iraqi people, Deek. Tell them how anarchy and civil war are the costs of becoming liberated. And while you're at it, explain to the peoples of other dictatorships in the neighborhood why they shouldn't be afraid of tearing down their governments and starting over from scratch. And after that, explain to the families of the 3,000 Americans who have died in Iraq how tiny and insignificant the body count is, in comparison with other wars.

[MacAllister]

I changed the word "hateful" just for you, Billy.

[dclary]

Tell that to the Iraqi people, Deek. Tell them how anarchy and civil war are the costs of becoming liberated. And while you're at it, explain to the peoples of other dictatorships in the neighborhood why they shouldn't be afraid of tearing down their governments and starting over from scratch. And after that, explain to the families of the 3,000 Americans who have died in Iraq how tiny and insignificant the body count is, in comparison with other wars.

I don't have to, Harrison. They already know.

Instead, why don't you try to explain how they're not worth fighting for?

[billythrilly7th]

I changed the word "hateful" just for you, Billy.

:)

[SC Harrison]

Instead, why don't you try to explain how they're not worth fighting for?

I've been staring at this question for a while trying to figure out how you arrived at this...I give up.

I have an idea—why don't we ask them if they want us there? Not Parliament, but the Iraqi people themselves. We all know the answer to this already, but what they want matters even less now than it did pre-invasion.

[billythrilly7th]

Not Parliament, but the Iraqi people themselves.

Let's do it.

Let's not rely on the reliable "polling data" and "statistics" that come from Iraq about whether we are wanted there or not.

National Referendum.

International monitors.

Vote away my Iraqi friends.

What you say, goes.

I'm up for it.

Thank you.

[blacbird]

Let's do it.

Let's not rely on the reliable "polling data" and "statistics" that come from Iraq about whether we are wanted there or not.

National Referendum.

International monitors.

Vote away my Iraqi friends.

What you say, goes.

I'm up for it.

Thank you.

And if they vote in a Shi'a religious slate with Taliban-like leanings and maybe Moqtada al-Sadr as its leader . . . ?

caw.

[dclary]

I've been staring at this question for a while trying to figure out how you arrived at this...I give up.I'm inexplicable that way.

[billythrilly7th]

Question for Democrats...

When it comes to leaving Iraq A.S.A.P. do you not care that it will delve into a massive civil war with hundreds of thousands slaughtered OR do you believe that wouldn't happen and the country will stabilize after our exit?

Please go on the record.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

And if they vote in a Shi'a religious slate with Taliban-like leanings and maybe Moqtada al-Sadr as its leader . . . ?

caw.

Oh, that's a foregone conclusion.

A. We kill THAT guy before we leave.

B. And I've stated many times, that if we have to blow the middle east off the map, the one great thing that comes from the Iraq war is that we can sleep at night and say "Hey, we friggin tried our best to help these people and give them freedom and democracy."

I know I'll sleep better knowing that we tried, before having to destroy them.

I say we leave it up to the Iraqi people and they can live with the decisions they make. However poorly they may choose.

[Jean Marie]

That's weird, Steve, 'cause I've been staring at the same question for a while, too. And I've no idea what the answer is.

Yes, the Iraqi Parliament wants us there. But if a poll were to be taken amongst the Iraqi people, I'm fairly sure that the larger percentage of them would want us gone, yesterday. To them, we're interferring.

At the beginning of this, both sides of the aisle appeared to agree w/ the invasion. Now, both sides of the aisle disagree w/ their prior decision. And for good reason. All the points have been argued, we know them by rote. It boils down to Afghanistan was the right thing to do and Iraq was a monumental mistake. And Rumsfeld's arrogance will keep us there, unfortunately.

He never should have been made Sec. of Defense--he's a jerk w/ no military experience. Powell should have had that job.

***In case you're wondering, JM's busy at the moment. I'm her clone. Depending on how things go, I may stay on, permanently***

Further, Rumsfeld should be pulled from office. And the sooner, the better. His defiance has gone so far as to no longer share requested information w/ Congressman Shays. How do I know this? From a town hall meeting that I attended and Shays talked about it, in public. I doubt he'd make that up.

ETA: Obviously we can't leave Iraq immediately. But, we need to withdraw, soon. The Iraqi leadership has become too dependent on our troops. Time they learn to fly on their own.

[DeniseK]

I don't believe the phrases "leave Iraq" and "asap" can even be used in the same sentence. We stuck our nose in where it didn't belong and now we are going to have to stay and try to clean up the mess we've made as best we can. But I don't think that country will heal itself for years and I also don't think we can heal them. It's going to be ugly, no matter what happens. You can't change centuries of behavior and ingrained thinking and beliefs in months, and you can't actually CHANGE behavior at all. Sooner or later, we are going to have to leave and let the Iraq people stand on their own two feet.

[billythrilly7th]

Sooner or later, we are going to have to leave and let the Iraq people stand on their own two feet.

I agree.

[Jean Marie]

I agree.
See, and it didn't hurt, did it?

[blacbird]

Question for Democrats...

When it comes to leaving Iraq A.S.A.P. do you not care that it will delve into a massive civil war with hundreds of thousands slaughtered OR do you believe that wouldn't happen and the country will stabilize after our exit?

Please go on the record.

Thank you.

Silly question. First of all, you need to define A.S.A.P. in some manner that makes sense beyond the surficial acronym, the "as possible" part, being operative. Right now, there are a lot of people from the entire political spectrum openly saying things like: We're going to have to choose the least bad option, because none of the options left open to us are much good. Kerry, Murth and some other prominent Dems have been pressing for a timetable for a year now. I disagreed with them a year ago; I'm much closer to agreeing with them now. Maybe not a strict A then B then C timeline with chosen deadlines, but quite possibly an A by June 2007, and if that's not accomplished, B by October, and C by March 2008. Defining A, B and C is a matter right now for further discussion.

But hardly anybody with a microgram of sense is going to jump up and down and maintain that what we're doing right now is accomplishing anything permanently useful. Something has to change. And, now we hear, the Administration is talking about something smelling like a "timetable", even though they don't like to use that word (for obvious political reasons).

And I don't have a clue how we're going to prevent a full-out Shi'a/Sunni sectarian civil war there, regardless of how long we stay. We aren't doing a lot to control it now.

caw

[blacbird]

Question for Democrats...

When it comes to leaving Iraq A.S.A.P. do you not care that it will delve into a massive civil war with hundreds of thousands slaughtered OR do you believe that wouldn't happen and the country will stabilize after our exit?

Please go on the record.

Thank you.

Silly question. First of all, you need to define A.S.A.P. in some manner that makes sense beyond the surficial acronym, the "as possible" part, being operative. Right now, there are a lot of people from the entire political spectrum openly saying things like: We're going to have to choose the least bad option, because none of the options left open to us are much good. Kerry, Murth and some other prominent Dems have been pressing for a timetable for a year now. I disagreed with them a year ago; I'm much closer to agreeing with them now. Maybe not a strict A then B then C timeline with chosen deadlines, but quite possibly an A by June 2007, and if that's not accomplished, B by October, and C by March 2008. Defining A, B and C is a matter right now for further discussion.

But hardly anybody with a microgram of sense is going to jump up and down and maintain that what we're doing right now is accomplishing anything permanently useful. Something has to change. And, now we hear, the Administration is talking about something smelling like a "timetable", even though they don't like to use that word (for obvious political reasons).

And I don't have a clue how we're going to prevent a full-out Shi'a/Sunni sectarian civil war there, regardless of how long we stay. We aren't doing a lot to control it now.

caw

[DeniseK]

Jeez, we heard ya'll the first time!:tongue

[dclary]

Do you know why we've been in Iraq now longer than we were involved in WWII and the war's not over, and we're still seeing boys die every now and then?

Because in WWII we bombed the holy crap out of our enemies. Wholesale, mass bombings of everything that looked like a target, looked like a potential target, looked like a place where people might consider wanting to place a target. We bombed cities en masse. We destroyed everything we touched. It was Sherman to Atlanta in the Deutschland.

On the other side of the world, we literally eliminated two entire cities from the planet's surface. Man, woman, child, samurai and ninja alike.


War isn't easy. And shame on you for making it seem like it is. No two wars are the same, and if you've chosen (as we have) to actually give a rat's a** about these people, then we've got to walk this fine line of hypocrisy. We've got to kill people while espousing life. We've got to fight while promoting peace. We have to show them that there's a way this all works out for the better.

Think that's easy? Hah.

Our goals were noble. They still are. The fact that they're difficult to attain makes them even more worth the striving.

[billythrilly7th]

Silly question. First of all, you need to define A.S.A.P. in some manner that makes sense beyond the surficial acronym, the "as possible" part, being operative.

Long answer for that silly question.

:wink and a small hug emoticon:

Answer to yours....Now.

Just leaving.

ASAP is today.

We can leave whenever we want if we want.

[blacbird]

War isn't easy. And shame on you for making it seem like it is.

Shame on me????? Show me someplace where I ever said anything about this war or any other war being "easy". It's pretty well-established that it was the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith clique that maintained we could fight this war on the cheap. Remember "Shock and Awe"? Beat 'em with flashy lights and big noises? Some cheap. Colin Powell knew better, and got marginalized out the door for saying so (his pseudo-loyal silence on the matter since does him no credit, however).

caw.

[Jean Marie]

Like I said, Rummy doesn't know how to fight a damned war. Why? He's got no experience outside of being an arrogant fool. He refuses to listen to anyone's counsel, that's wiser than his own. He's determined to do it his own way, which is why this stupid war is still going on.

IF it had been fought properly, w/o the media microscope, it would have been over w/ quickly. However, it would have had to of been under different leadership other than Rummy-the-Dummy.

Several of my friends are soldiers and have/are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't care for being followed around w/ cameras.

Rummy needs to go, now. He's made a mess of things, only lives have been lost. It's not the kind of mess that can actually be cleaned up. The longer he's allowed to control things, the worse it will get. Possibly, and I say that w/ great pause, Bush is waking up to that fact. IF he is, I hope it's not too late.

Again, it's a shame Powell wasn't put into that position.

[MacAllister]

Blacbird, Powell is being (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106_pf.html) considerably more frank (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Powell_says_he_was_fired_1001.html) in his new biography.

[blacbird]

Blacbird, Powell is being (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106_pf.html) considerably more frank (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Powell_says_he_was_fired_1001.html) in his new biography.

About time.

caw

[dclary]

You know, bickering like children about the war is one thing. Is anyone here man enough to declare the AP as ignorant or biased, based on my analysis of the press conference? That's really the only reason why I'm slumming in the thread.

[blacbird]

You know, bickering like children about the war is one thing. Is anyone here man enough to declare the AP as ignorant or biased, based on my analysis of the press conference? That's really the only reason why I'm slumming in the thread.

Based on your analysis?

No.

I didn't see it, so I can't address the issue further.

caw.

[chicagogal]

are we now a political forum? if so noone wins. in politics and religion it is an ongoing "discussion." no one wins, everyone gets hot under the collar. shall we just discuss our writing efforts et al?

[blacbird]

are we now a political forum? if so noone wins. in politics and religion it is an ongoing "discussion." no one wins, everyone gets hot under the collar. shall we just discuss our writing efforts et al?

Ummmm . . . Chigal, the point of creating this particular sub-forum was precisely to isolate politically-related discussions from other stuff, ya know? Hence, the name.

caw.

[Kentuk]

It was a stupid war to start. Most Americans who think this agreed it was important to stay the course and see it through. Only now there seems no 'honorable' way out. I don't hear the hawks advocating sending five hundred thousand men to turn the situation around and the military is sounding increasingly pessimistic. I fear the days are numbered for the last super power.

Kentuk

[blacbird]

It's fascinating that Bush has finally jettisoned the "Stay the course" rhetoric, which had just plain become silly, and a political liability, as Tony Snow now openly admits. Too bad they couldn't have figured out the difference between slogans and strategy three years ago.

caw.

[dclary]

are we now a political forum? if so noone wins. in politics and religion it is an ongoing "discussion." no one wins, everyone gets hot under the collar. shall we just discuss our writing efforts et al?

Yeah, here's where blacky and I come together across the aisle.

In the "Political Theory" forum, we, uh, pretty much discuss politics.

[Bravo]

blacky's gone.

:(

[dclary]

I know. :(

caw

[DeniseK]

Where'd he go? Surely he didn't leave because a newbie didn't realize this was a political forum? Lots of people just click on new post, I am one of them, I just happened to know that this was the politiical forum, but if a person clicking on new posts didn't look, they wouldn't know. I imagine that new person is probably embarrassed, but surely blackbird is still around!:cry:

[dclary]

Blacbird is, caw.

Blackheart isn't. He is gone forever. :(

[kikonie]

Where'd he go? Surely he didn't leave because a newbie didn't realize this was a political forum? Lots of people just click on new post, I am one of them, I just happened to know that this was the politiical forum, but if a person clicking on new posts didn't look, they wouldn't know. I imagine that new person is probably embarrassed, but surely blackbird is still around!:cry:

blacbird is gone - blackbird was never here

(well, not gone, just away)

[blacbird]

blacbird is gone - blackbird was never here

(well, not gone, just away)

Actually, no, it gets confusing. There is an entirely 'nuther person known as "blackbird", with a "k", whom is not me, and who seldom if ever comments on political issues, but is otherwise almost as smart and articulate as I am. I think we joined the place about the same time, and coincidentally took up closely similar nommes de nette.

And I wasn't away. Just asleep.

caw.

[billythrilly7th]

but is otherwise almost as smart and articulate as I am.

I find that hard to believe.

How could anyone be as smart and articulate as you?
:)

[TheGaffer]

IF it had been fought properly, w/o the media microscope, it would have been over w/ quickly.
The media microscope has not lengthened this war in any way. In addition, it's 2006. The media microscope exists. One could argue that if more news outlets had done more critical reporting in the weeks/months prior to the war, perhaps such a terrible idea as this would have been headed off in the first place. Not likely, since Bush made up his mind to "f*** it, we're taking him out" all along, but it's possible...the rampant cheerleading from the TV networks and the NYT's Judith Miller actually made this worse.

However, it would have had to of been under different leadership other than Rummy-the-Dummy.
Yes. True.

Several of my friends are soldiers and have/are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't care for being followed around w/ cameras.
They oughta get used to it.

Again, it's a shame Powell wasn't put into that position.
He may have been ignored anyway. He wasn't put into that position, after all. And when it came to a point when he could have said, "Sir, this plan just does not work, it's untenable, it's based on flimsy intelligence about what exists there as well as and poor assumptions about what will occur if we go in, not to mention the counterweight this bastard functions as to Iran," he didnt and instead played the good soldier. He's being more candid now in his remarks? Well, not to be mean here, but F*** HIM. This isn't some random back-bencher GOP Congressman who says "I realize now I was wrong." (Or Dem congressman, for that matter). Those people didn't have the same level of information, and were more willing, 2 years into Bush's first term, to give the president the benefit of the doubt -- partially because of Powell's presence. What did Powell do? Nothing. Didn't deter anything, when he was supposed to be the "adult" in the room, the one with the wise counsel. It's to his shame that he didn't speak up.

[kikonie]

Originally Posted by kikonie
blacbird is gone - blackbird was never here

(well, not gone, just away)


Actually, no, it gets confusing. There is an entirely 'nuther person known as "blackbird", with a "k", whom is not me, and who seldom if ever comments on political issues, but is otherwise almost as smart and articulate as I am. I think we joined the place about the same time, and coincidentally took up closely similar nommes de nette.

And I wasn't away. Just asleep.

caw.

Apparently still sleeping - how cute: "Actually, no" is the wrong response to "blacbird is gone - blackbird was never here".

[dclary]

I missed you, Gaffer.

[TheGaffer]

Dude, that CCR post totally rules. I'm gonna post on that for weeks.

:)

[dclary]

Maybe you are a fortunate son, then.

[TheGaffer]

It ain't me.

[blacbird]

Some folks are born, silver spoon in hand, wavin' the red-white-and-blue.

caw.

[dclary]

I ain't no senator's son.

[blacbird]

Do they point the finger at you?

caw