Adventures in RightieWorld

Posted on by

Some flaming idiot rightie actually titled a blog post, “Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates.”

I kept readng to find out how “the Left” celebrated:

Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader–and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians—would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn’t. But it would be nice to know he was dead.

Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.

Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.

The “signs of dismay” link takes us not to dKos, but to another rightie blog post:

Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi’s possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:

    [quoting Armando]The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.

    What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd.

Let’s boil this down.

A. Rightie #1 says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.

B. Rightie #2 says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.

C. Armando at dKos says the death of Zarqawi would be a good development in the struggle against terrorism, although Zarqawi’s death wouldn’t end the violence in Iraq.

In RightieWorld, statements A and B are righteous, while statement C is depraved and unpatriotic.

Righties don’t dislike us because of our opinions. They dislike us because they are stuck in the Twilight Zone.

Righties #1 and #2 might be surprised to learn than we Lefties bitterly complained when the Bush Administration passed up at least three chances to kill Zarqawi before the Iraq War began. You can read about this here.

Related Link: David Neiwert is up to Part Four of his series on Michelle Malkin — “Unhinged: Unhonest.” Don’t miss this.

Update: Rightie #3 links to Rightie #1 and writes, “The Jawa Reports that the Left is rejoicing that Zarqawi may still be alive.” Typically, #3 offers no documentation of the “rejoicing” other than the link to #1.

Update update: See also Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest.

Update update update: See Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog.

Murtha-Schmidt Smackdown

Posted on by

In this corner, Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania — Steven Thomma of Knight Ridder reports that many of Murtha’s constituents support his Iraq withdrawal proposal.

… mostly people in Murtha’s blue-collar, coal-and-steel country district in west Pennsylvania signaled weariness for the war. They endorse the man who has represented them since he became the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress in 1974.

The support suggested that attacks on Murtha in Washington as a coward will gain no traction in his district. …

…”I agree with him wholeheartedly,” said Robert Bender, a World War II veteran and retired steel worker who serves as the adjutant of American Legion Post 294. “We shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. Now that they have a Constitution, we should get out.”

The blue-collar Democrats who live and work in the small towns of Murtha’s district are culturally conservative. Like him, they’re pro-gun and pro-life. And like him, they’re proudly patriotic.

Except for a few Pittsburgh Steelers posters, the Legion Hall’s dark-paneled walls are a billboard of support for the U.S. military. “Operation Desert Storm, U.S. military at its finest,” says one poster. “9-11-01. We will never forget,” says another.

“It’s a conservative area. But we don’t support this particular war,” said Bender. “Most of the people around here are in accord with him on this,” he added.

In the other corner, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt of Ohio — Jason DeParle writes in the New York Times that Mrs. Schmidt’s constituents are not surprised.

…when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, created a furor on her 75th day in Congress by lobbing the word “coward” toward a Democratic war hero, those who know her best were anything but surprised.

Just this week, a profile in The Hill newspaper, which covers Congress, labeled her “gloriously uncensored.” Back home in her suburban Cincinnati district, the Whistleblower, an online newsletter that tracks local politics, rushed out a special I-told-you-so issue calling the speech “vintage Jean Schmidt.”

“We have said innumerable times that she would go to Washington and open her mouth and create an embarrassment,” said Jim Schifrin, the newsletter’s publisher. “She will say things that turn people off like nothing you’ve ever seen.”

I made an attempt to find The Whistleblower , but the only link that looked promising wasn’t working. If anyone can provide a link, I’d appreciate it.

Mrs. Schmidt’s Republican colleagues made excuses for her shameless weasel insult of Congressman Murtha:

Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.

“The poor lady didn’t know Jack Murtha was a Marine – she really just ran into a hornet’s nest,” said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia.

Representative David Dreier of California said, “Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine.”

Sure she didn’t. Clearly, she intended to insult some generic Marine, not Murtha specifically.

So what does Mean Jean say for herself?

Ms. Schmidt could not be reached for comment on Saturday, with voice mailboxes full at all three of her offices. Her campaign manager did not return a phone call.

Well, OK. But it’s likely her supporters still support her.

The 100-proof speech on the House floor may shore up Ms. Schmidt’s standing inside her party’s right flank.

“I was listening to talk radio today, and people were calling in and praising her,” said Chris Finney, a Cincinnati Republican allied with Ms. Schmidt’s local rivals. “They like that jingoistic thinking.”

But Thomma of Knight Ridder says Murtha’s constituents see things differently.

Her words didn’t sit well in the Legion bar.

“We’re proud of him. We don’t like it when people attack him,” said Barry Sirko of Johnstown, sipping a beer after his shift washing buses.

“We’ve lost more than 2000 troops so far. Murtha thinks the Iraqis should be fighting on their own. Murtha’s right. It’s gone on and on and on. They’re all nuts over there and we should get out.”

Asked whether Murtha was surrendering to terrorists, several patrons jumped in at once to say that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which they considered more important.

“We were supposed to be hunting terrorists. We dropped that to get into this war,” said Bender.

“They should have kept going after bin Laden. What the heck are we doing in Iraq?” said Ray Telgarsky, a retired autoworker from Johnstown.

Even if they disagree, many of Murtha’s constituents still like and respect him. They know his record in the Marines – Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry. And they know his clout in Congress has helped them weather the lost jobs in the mines and steel mills. Among the bounty he’s brought home: the National Drug Intelligence Center and plants or offices set up by defense contractors including Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Kuchera Defense Systems and Concurrent Technologies Corp.

At Murtha’s district office, calls, e-mails and faxes ran about 2-1 in support, though aides didn’t know how many came from within the district. An unscientific poll taken by a local television station found about the same.

I lived in the Ohio Second District for five years. It was a while back, but from what I’ve read it’s still a mix of small towns, farms, and upscale Cincinnati suburbs. I’m betting those Clermont County Country Clubbers wouldn’t last long in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, American Legion bar.

See also–Howard Fineman on Murtha and the Bush “war room”

Rumsfeld Didn’t Advocate Invasion

Posted on by

Rummy just told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that he didn’t advocate the invasion of Iraq. However, he agreed with it. Now he’s denying torture; “anything that was done that was not humane has been prosecuted.” He says the President “from the outset” required humane treatment. He’s tap dancing around Bush’s threatened veto of the McCain Amendment.

I can’t stand it.

Germany: About That Intelligence …

Posted on by

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. — President George W. Bush, November 11, 2005

We’ve already discussed the reason the bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure regarding WMDs — they weren’t looking for it. That’s why the Senate Dems closed the Senate down a few days ago. They were trying to pressure the Republicans in charge to get off their butts and start looking.

As they say … duh.

Now, let’s go on to the part about the world intelligence community agreeing with Bush’s assessment. Bob Drogin and John Goetz write in today’s Los Angeles Times that Germany tried to warn the U.S. about funky intelligence before the Iraq invasion.

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Mischaracterized. Nice.

Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case.

Sounds like the commission missed some spots.

An investigation by The Times based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the U.S., Germany, England, Iraq and the United Nations, as well as other experts, shows that U.S. bungling in the Curveball case was worse than official reports have disclosed.

The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball’s account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq’s biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years.

At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball’s account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.

The Germans say Curveball is mentally and emotionally unstable. And they say they told the U.S. that his stories about WMDs in Iraq were, at the very least, dubious.

The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball’s case said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball’s claims as a justification for war.

“We were shocked,” the official said. “Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven…. It was not hard intelligence.”

This is a long story that I haven’t read all the way through yet, but I ‘spect we’ll be hearing more about this in the next few days.

Related link: “What I Knew Before the Invasion” by Bob Graham

It’s Hadley

Posted on by

Or so say Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter in the London Times.

THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.

Are we sure?

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council (NSC) denied that Hadley was the journalist’s source. However, in South Korea on Friday during an official visit with President George W Bush, Hadley dodged the question.

“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.”

A White House official said the national security adviser’s ambiguity was unintentional and repeated that Hadley was not Woodward’s source. But others close to the investigation insisted that he was.

This is the part that makes no sense to me:

Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.

Fitzgerald only said that Libby was the first KNOWN administration official to spread the word about Plame, and I don’t see how Libby’s being first, sixth, or twenty-seventh makes a dadblamed difference to any of the charges against him.

If anything, seems to me it looks a lot worse for the Bushies if someone else was in on the word spreading, especially a whole month earlier. Can we say, conspiracy?

In the past few hours we’ve learned that the Source, whoever it was, kind of “forgot” about the conversation and didn’t go to Patrick Fitzgerald to ‘fess up until Bob Woodward “reminded” him about it. Has Hadley offered any testimony to Fitzgerald or other federal investigators before this? I don’t know. What about the email Karl Rove sent to Hadley after his July 2003 conversation with Matt Cooper? Why did Rove email Hadley?

Steve Soto asked,

If Hadley came forward to tell Fitzgerald that he was releasing Woodward from any pledge of confidentiality, what and who prompted Hadley to do this? Did Scooter or Cheney force Hadley’s hand, knowing that Libby wasn’t the first to talk with reporters about Plame’s identity? Remember that just before the Libby indictment, there were stories that Hadley assumed he would be indicted. …

… If Hadley was in fact the first administration official to talk to a member of the media about Plame’s identity, and knowingly revealing that she was a possible covert operative due to her assignment in the Directorate of Operations, how plausible is it that his boss at the time didn’t know about this either. You know, his boss, the current Secretary of State?

Why would Karl Rove have emailed Hadley, in particular? Hmm.

Rightie Challenge II

Posted on by

This is a follow up to yesterday’s post that challenged righties to answer a couple of basic questions about Iraq. There are some great comments to that post, but none from righties. It’s possible none happened to drop by. I don’t exactly keep a “Righties Welcome” sign out, do I?

Anyway, Josh Marshall expresses some of the same ideas:

… The real problem though — and this becomes clear listening to the president, and increasingly from his supporters — is that the president no longer has any coherent idea of what the war he’s fighting amounts to or what victory would look like.

He says we’ll fight it out to victory or that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” But it’s been a really long time since I’ve heard any coherent plan for what we’re trying to do besides slogans like this.

If we’re honest I think what the president is saying is this: We’re going to stay in Iraq until the place calms down and we can leave with a sense that we’ve accomplished something.

Isn’t that basically the idea?

Isn’t it? If not, why not?

At Kos, Armando argues that some kind of withdrawal really is the only plan on the table, and all the “never surrender” talk is … just talk. Beside getting out … sooner or later … there is no plan.

Eleanor Clift writes in Newsweek

If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case–what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing.

Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.

Bottom line: The invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and George W. Bush isn’t man enough to admit he made a mistake. And all the smearing and derision and bluster coming out of the Right is just enabling.

At The Left Coaster, larre writes,

A somewhat obscure blog known as Kazablog already is saying this is the tipping point. There will soon be many more. Just watch Technorati or Blog Search or Daou Report or Lefty Blogs or any of the dozen other blog aggregates, left and right.

That’s what has war supporters of both parties gnawing their tails. They know that If you really want to support our troops, military leaders are saying through Mr. Murtha, you’ll help to bring them home now.

By January, the criminal George W. Bush will be trying to join the chorus.

We’ll see. I think the tipping point has been reached as far as the majority of Americans is concerned. The question is, how long will it take before the Bitter Enders — now down to 34 percent — realize this?

Update: See the Mean Jean smackdown by ReddHedd at firedoglake.

Not Like a Virgin

Posted on by

It’s kind of like virginity. It is hard to get back.” — John Zogby on President Bush regaining public trust

Steven Thomma of Knight Ridder writes that “Bush has lost his aura of invincibility” and Republicans are losing cohesion and direction. “‘There’s been an erosion of power at high levels,’ California Institute of Technology’s Alvarez said. “They’re not able to focus on maintaining the kind of cohesion that has been their hallmark since 2000. They’re not able to put the energy into cracking the whip.'”

House Republicans looked back in form last night as they pulled a political stunt to block serious discussion of Congressman Murtha’s Iraq redeployment proposal. However, seems to me yesterday’s episode in cowardice and misdirection could easily backfire on the Republicans. In spite of the GOP’s shameless mockery of his serious proposal, I don’t believe John Murtha is going away. Much depends on whether Dems get some spine and back him up. Early yesterday that looked iffy, but last night’s House debacle may have pissed off enough of ’em that maybe they’ll finally form a line of battle and start fighting together.

One of Congressman’s Murtha’s points, that Iraqis are not going to “stand up” as long as we’re there to do the standing for ’em, has a nice “tough love” ring to it that could be very appealing to a lot of Americans. It even sounds kinda conservative; it makes me think of old conservative arguments about welfare dependency — that some people won’t get serious about working as long as they can live on the public dole. Considering that at least 60 percent of the public has turned against the war, I think Murtha’s is a much stronger argument than Bush’s mushy “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,” which leaves control of when we leave in the hands of Iraqis. Continue reading →

Cowards

Posted on by

Ohio Congresswoman and former maha next-door-neighbor Jean Schmidt called John Murtha a coward on the floor of Congress today.

I just saw it on television. I don’t have the exact quote, but it was something to the effect of “Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.”

I am reasonably certain the congresswoman is not a Marine, btw.

Congressman Murtha is on television denouncing the house resolution today calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq. He feels it makes a mockery of his proposal from yesterday. By Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press:

House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker’s call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

“We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. “We will not retreat.” …

… The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position – whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

Murtha says that the Republican resolution is not what he proposed, and he is upset that, after he spent months thinking and working out the details of his proposal, The GOP would, in effect, put up a straw proposal in its place just so they could knock it down. Continue reading →

Questions for Righties

Posted on by

Dana Milbank writes in today’s Washington Post:

In his 37 years in the military, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat “V,” and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. As a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania for the past 31 years, he has been a fierce hawk, championing conflicts in Central America and the Persian Gulf.

Yesterday, he was called a coward.

It was as sure as the sun comin’ up in the morning that the righties would smear Murtha for his speech calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Righties have utterly lost the ability to just disagree with someone. Opposition must be crushed.

After Murtha stunned the Capitol with a morning news conference calling for a pullout from Iraq because our “troops have done all they can,” the denunciations came quickly.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) accused Murtha of delivering “the highest insult” to the troops. “We must not cower,” Hastert lectured the old soldier.

Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) informed Murtha that his views “only embolden our enemies” and lamented that “Democrats undermine our troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, D.C., offices.”

At a rival news conference called four hours after Murtha’s appearance, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), who like Hastert and Blunt does not have military service on his resume, alerted the 73-year-old Murtha that “the American people are made of sterner stuff.” And Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.) said the likes of Murtha want to take “the cowardly way out and say, ‘We’re going to surrender.’ “

Murtha wasn’t surprised.

Murtha, whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the word “chicken,” was expecting the attacks. “I like guys who’ve never been there to criticize us who’ve been there. I like that,” the burly old Marine said, hands in pocket. Referring to Vice President Cheney, he continued: “I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”

If you really want to read what’s being said about Murtha on the Right Blogosphere you can find plenty of links of Memeorandum today. But you know what they’re saying. They are calling Murtha every vile name they can think of. For example, in a post titled “Democrats Keep Shifting Towards Surrender,” Captain Ed writes,

Rep. John Murtha pushed the national argument on the Iraq War further towards the International ANSWER/MoveOn agenda this afternoon by demanding an immediate start of an American retreat from Iraq, declaring that American soldiers do not have the capability to defeat terrorists. He based his conclusion not on the facts on the ground, but apparently his experience in Viet Nam, which he tossed around like a West Point degree all afternoon long.

This is, of course, a deeply dishonest representation of what Congressman Murtha actually said. But instead of addressing the congressman’s points, such as —

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

— which must be what Captain Ed mistranslated into “American soldiers do not have the capability to defeat terrorists,” the Right does what the Right always does and erupts into a festival of mud-throwing.

I’d like the righties to answer two questions honestly. Yeah, I know, when pigs fly. But this is the discussion we should be having if rightes were capable of rational discussion:

The first question is What is our political objective in Iraq? I want a concrete answer, not just “peace, prosperity, and freedom,” because those are a tad open ended. This nation was founded (if you count from the ratificaton of the Articles of Confederation) 224 years ago, and we’re still working on those objectives ourselves. We’ve done better than a lot of other nations with them, granted, but even we don’t have them perfected.

I know a lot of you want to say Screw the objectives; let’s just get out. Maybe so, but right now I’m not trying to determine what our Iraq policy should be. Rather, I’m looking at the national discussion we are not having to determine what the policy should be.

I believe the original Neocon vision was to establish a pro-American government in Iraq headed by their buddy Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The recent reception Chalabi got in Washington makes me think the Neocons are still holding out hope for this. Cards on the table, rightes–is that still the goal? And if so, we need to talk. We need to talk about why the Neocons are stll married to Chalabi. We need to talk about whether a stable, democratic, and pro-American government, with or without Chalabi, is still possible in Iraq. Or, will we settle for any government the majority of Iraqis consider legitimate, even if that government doesn’t like us much, for the sake of regional stability?

In other words, given our current status (assuming we can agree on that), what can we realistically expect to achieve that would serve the best interests of the United States and Iraq? We should consider both the stability of the Middle East and the discouragement of terrorism. We should also consider rationally how much of our military resources we can afford to commit before we weaken our ability to respond to other problems beside Iraq.

Once we’re settled on the objective, we can go on to the second question — Is our military activity supporting that objective? One of Congressman Murtha’s points is that it isn’t. Yesterday the congressman said,

It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” …

…I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

The congressman is hardly the first person to warn that our presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency. It is obvious to me we are simultaneously feeding and smothering the same fire. Righties lack the moral courage to address this issue; they just jerk their knees and deny it. But if civilians are being burned with white phosporous, even accidently, generations of Iraqis will remember. Assuming that establishing a pro-American government in Iraq is an objective, pissing off the populace seems counterproductive. At the very least we should be looking hard at our rules of engagment to minimize these little accidents. On the other hand, putting too many constraints on our soldiers puts them at greater risk.

The obvious solution is to expect the Iraqis to fight their own bleeping insurgency. But as Steve M. calculated, at our current rate “the Iraqi military will be able to replace the 160,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq in the year 2592.” No, that’s not an exageration. Based on the Pentagon’s own reports, we’re averaging 22 fully training Iraqi soldiers a month. So unless we can find a way to crank out fully trained Iraqi soldiers a damn sight quicker than we’re doing it now, we’re going to have to make up our minds what “victory” we will settle for. Otherwise 20 years from now the children of today’s U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be fighting the children of today’s insurgents.

The terrible truth that the Right refuses to face is that we could win a military objective and lose the political objective. I’m sure we could, if we really tried, obliterate Iraq, but I think even righties — some of ’em, anyway — ought to be able to comprehend that obliteration would be counterproductive to Iraqi freedom and prosperity and all that. We need to make some firm decisions about how aggressively the U.S. can pursue a military objective without utterly screwing up the political objective.

Congressman Murtha’s contention, stated above, is that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding our political goals. Are there any righties out there willing even to discuss this, beyond “You’re wrong” and “Murtha stinks”? Are our military actions furthering or impeding our political goals in Iraq? And if the answer is “impeding,” then what the hell are we fighting for?

If any righties wander by here and want to provide serious answers to these questions based on factual evidence, they are welcome to do so. Knee-jerk comments or gratuitious insults will, as usual, be deleted.