Balkinization  

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

All Democrats Are Traitors; We May Need a Coup

JB

Two fascinating arguments from National Review Online. The first from Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview of Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “BuzzPatterson:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book [War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror] begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation “cannot survive treason from within.” Surely you’re not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

“Buzz” Patterson:
I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as “cold blooded killers” before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield. These are behaviors that give aid and comfort to our enemy.

It’s not just the Democrats though but many on the Left — its faculties and administrations on college campuses, big media, Hollywood, and left-wing organizations such as the Ford Foundation, Moveon.org, United for Peace and Justice, etc. What is particularly disturbing to me is that these Americans are doing it while their fellow citizens are fighting and dying in combat. The best ally that al Qaeda has these days is the Democrat Party leadership. It’s reprehensible.

Lopez asks him several more questions to see if he is serious. He really is. As they say in the blogosphere, read the whole thing.

The second argument comes from economist Thomas Sowell's regular column, in which he decries the corrosive effects of liberalism in our society (and the apparently related fact that "[f]ew pitchers go even nine innings these days."):

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
What remains unclear is whether Sowell thinks we would need a coup against the current Administration to save the country or against the one that would replace it following the 2008 election. One wonders what Lt. Colonel Patterson would say: Would a coup d'etat that rid us of liberalism be treason, or would it be the truest form of patriotism?

Is it my imagination, or has National Review gone completely bonkers? What explains the appearance of these arguments within its pages?

Comments:

Professor Balkin:

“Buzz” Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as “cold blooded killers” before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield. These are behaviors that give aid and comfort to our enemy.

Since you have not addressed the substance of this argument, I will do so.

As General Peterson observes, treason requires that the traitor both adhere as well as provide aid and comfort to our nation's enemies.

It is hard to seriously argue that a Senator or Representative who declares a war to be lost and proposes surrender of territory to an enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy and undermining our troops in the field.

However, is the motive here to adhere to the enemy or simply cluelessness or craven political calculation? It would appear that the motives are the latter. If not, then a charge of treason might have merit.

On the other hand, when a Senator or Representative calls our troops cold blooded murderers, fascists and communists, this would appear to be a reprehensible slander rather than providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

There is no need for critics to go overboard and call these acts treason. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy while undermining and slandering our troops is bad enough on its own. Such Senators and Representatives should resign in shame.
 

Lt. Col. Patterson reminds me of another soldier who called 'em like he saw 'em ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekw3XVq1uHs&mode=related&search=
 

Sowell's comments lend new meaning to the phrase: identification with the aggressor.
 

It's extremely telling that the only three reasons Bart appears to be capable of imagining for Congress members opposing the Dear Leader's open-ended idiocy are: "to adhere to the enemy or simply cluelessness or craven political calculation".

Of course, GOP members of Congress would never be capable of such base motivations in their support for the Bush administration. No, like Ney, Cunningham, Hastert and Foley, their every action has been for the good of the country.
 

Giving aid and comfort is when you say something like: "if we do action-x, our enemy will think, merely think!, we win!, therefore, we will not do action-x." This is giving aid and comfort: giving a rat's ass what the goddamn f'in enemy thinks. Grow some balls already!

It amazes me that an administration so good at defining the terms of the discussion would give away so much in the foreign policy debate. They are truly moronic on this count, and unfortunately they have a lot of followers here.
 

[Prof. Balkin, from the post]: Is it my imagination, or has National Review gone completely bonkers? What explains the appearance of these arguments within its pages?

No. It's just sidling up to the WSJ editorial page.

In case you didn't notice, we've seen pretty much the same stuff from "Bart" too WRT this "treason" charge.

Cheers,
 

They are just paving the way for the concentration camps, purges, and secret torture prisons that will spring-up (Malkin willing) here in the US after the next 9/11.

9/11 caught everyone off guard -- except people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson -- they seized the moment and blamed their domestic opponents immediately (gays, liberals, Hollywood, etc.). Well, the rest of the wingnuts have had over 5 years to catch on.

I guess when you make statements like Buzz here or call for mass internments of your fellow citizens or justify torture and other war crimes and call for the suspension of the Great Writ some people will start to compare you to fascists and communists. Imagine that.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

As General Peterson observes, treason requires that the traitor both adhere as well as provide aid and comfort to our nation's enemies.

So, "Bart", did Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, et al use SuperGlue™?

“Buzz” Patterson: When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis..."

"Buzz" and "Bart" need a trip down memory lane at Think Progress. You know, like this. And this. And this. And this. Lots more of the same where that came from (and that's just going back a week). So much hypcrisy, so little time.

Cheers,
 

Bart said:

"It is hard to seriously argue that a Senator or Representative who declares a war to be lost and proposes surrender of territory to an enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy and undermining our troops in the field."

Since Bush has followed Osama's war plan so far, I think that Bart has to start at the Capital Building, turn to the northwest, and look about a mile down the road to the northwest to find the best example of someone providing aid to the stated enemy.

And again, Bart, it is not our territory. The Iraqis want it back.
 

rmadilo:

Giving aid and comfort is when you say something like: "if we do action-x, our enemy will think, merely think!, we win!, therefore, we will not do action-x." This is giving aid and comfort: giving a rat's ass what the goddamn f'in enemy thinks. Grow some balls already!

It amazes me that an administration so good at defining the terms of the discussion would give away so much in the foreign policy debate. They are truly moronic on this count, and unfortunately they have a lot of followers here.


But this is the maladministration's modus operandi. You tell 'em "Don't do that, you'll shoot your eye out," and they'll come right back and say, "I'll do it if I want to 'cuz I can, so go 'Cheney' yourself". While reverse psychology loses its effectiveness at some point, it sometimes still does work on three-year-olds. Do you think that al Qaeda's caught on to this?

I have a hard time believing that I could ever say such a thing about the leading (for now) claque the 'Merkun aadministration, but, sadly enough, it is so....

Cheers,
 

What explains the appearance of these arguments within its pages?

Wishful thinking? Projection?
 

"What remains unclear is whether Sowell thinks we would need a coup against the current Administration to save the country or against the one that would replace it following the 2008 election."

This seems somewhat hysterical. Someone notes that, if a trend continues, we may eventually end up in a situation where a military coup is preferable to the (then) status quo, and you think they must be talking about next Tuesday? Get a grip.
 

Brett:

This seems somewhat hysterical. Someone notes that, if a trend continues, we may eventually end up in a situation where a military coup is preferable to the (then) status quo, and you think they must be talking about next Tuesday? Get a grip.

Yes. His "trend" is liberalism popping up everywhere like Easter lillies, confounding his dreams of the Fourth Reic... -- uh, sorry, mein Führer, "permanent Republican majority" and the canonisation of Saint Dubya after Saint Ronnie.

As for the timeline, I'm perhaps more in agreement. Tueday? Why wait? Let's rustle up the pitchforks and tar right now.

Cheers,
 

Fraud Guy said...

Bart, it is not our territory. The Iraqis want it back

The elected Iraqi government is sovereign over their territory. For the latest example, note the Iraqi government's order, which we obeyed to stop our operations fencing in a Sunni insurgent neighborhood in Baghdad.

Nor are the Iraqis doing a majority of the killing in Iraq. The majority of the killings which you read about in our press are suicide car vehicle bombings. As General David Petraeus reiterated in his most recent briefing (which these Dems who call the war lost or claim the US is in the middle of an "Iraqi civil war" did not attend), some 80-90% of the suicide bombers are foreign al Qaeda invading and murdering Iraqis much the same way they murdered our people on 9/11.

This is the enemy to which aid and comfort is being provided when the war is declared lost and a proposal is offered to surrender Iraq to that enemy.
 

Sowell is using a rhetorical device comparing a military coup with the current surrender movement to demonstrate how damaging the surrender movement is in comparison. Sowell is hardly proposing a military coup.
 

i note that the new york times is reporting today that condaleeza rice is expected to meet with the syrian foreign minister in the next day or two. using the logic of "buzz" patterson, i would ask our conservative friends at this blog if that makes her a traitor, along the lines of nancy pelosi. i would also note inasmuch as the secretary of state is surely arranging such a meeting on with the knowledge and consent of the president that this would make mr. bush guilty of treason as well under the "pelosi is a traitor" logic...
 

"Bart" DePalma is deluded:

Nor are the Iraqis doing a majority of the killing in Iraq. The majority of the killings which you read about in our press are suicide car vehicle bombings.

No. The majority of the killings are the 30 or so bodies that show up each and every day with fresh orifices courtesy of hot lead. The suicide bombings, while sanguinary, are not every day. And "Bart"'s assumption that suicide bombings are only the work of outsiders is not clear, either.

"Bart" quotes Powerline for Petraeus's assessment that the bombings are due to foreigners, but here's the actual transcript, where this question is asked and answered:

"Q: Number of foreign fighters?

"GEN. PETRAEUS: I wouldn't hazard I guess. What I will say is that there are certainly dozens of foreign fighters who do come into the country on a monthly basis; again, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the state of the network."

"[D]ozens". Damn, they're good....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma just hasn't read Sowell's article:

Sowell is using a rhetorical device comparing a military coup with the current surrender movement to demonstrate how damaging the surrender movement is in comparison. Sowell is hardly proposing a military coup.

What am eedjit. Sowell:

"“Global warming” seems to be joining “diversity,” “gun control,” “open space,” and a growing list of other subjects where rational discussion has become impossible — and where you are considered a bad person even for wanting to discuss it rationally.

"Is your employer poorer by the amount of money he pays you? Probably not, or you would never have been hired. Why then should we assume that a corporation or its customers are poorer by the amount paid to its chief-executive officer?

"A review of one of the many environmentalist books says that even if you can’t do all you would like toward “living green,” you can at least “congratulate yourself on taking small steps to improve the planet.” That is what environmentalism — and much else on the political Left’s agenda — is really all about, self congratulation.

"Just watching Suze Orman for a few moments while channel surfing is enough to make me feel exhausted.

"When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

WTF this screeching by Sowell has to do with The Deciderator-In-Chief's "Great War On A Noun" is beyond me. And beyond any semiliterate reador of Sowell's actual column as well.

Cheers,
 

BD:As General David Petraeus reiterated in his most recent briefing (which these Dems who call the war lost or claim the US is in the middle of an "Iraqi civil war" did not attend), some 80-90% of the suicide bombers are foreign al Qaeda invading and murdering Iraqis much the same way they murdered our people on 9/11.

Reread the transcript of the briefing and do a search for "sectarian." If you read it closely, you'll see that, for the General, the threat of al-Qaeda is not the "sensational attacks" that flood news stories, but the potential for al-Qaeda to ignite sectarian violence through those attacks.

Look at some of Petraeus' quotes and you might see my point:

We are doing what we're doing, increasing our forces, in response to an increase in sectarian violence that took place in the year 2006.

My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.

And it is something that again you have to drive down if again there's to be the degree of confidence that can help them gradually put a few stitches back into the fabric of a society that has been torn by sectarian violence.

I went on a couple of patrols the day after I took command back in February, and candidly, I was sort of shocked at what I saw in terms of what sectarian violence had done to Baghdad.

In fact, the progress is interesting, because it's a negative. It means nothing happened, in most cases. In other words, there were not sectarian murders.

If you pay attention to what the General says, it is clear that the problem all along has been sectarian violence, which certainly has been a goal of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but remains the metric by which our mission's success is measured.

Bart, if our mission is defined by reducing sectarian violence, how is that conceptually different for you from being "in the middle of a civil war"?
 

phg: ...i would ask our conservative friends at this blog if that makes her a traitor...

Respectfully, I think you're making the classic mistake in dealing with cowardly, lying cheats: giving them credit for fair play or honorable intentions. Neither are present in the dealings of our most prolific neo-con troll, sadly. I've pointed to the 1996 GOPAC memo many times before; it bears repeating, to remind good-faith thinkers who wish to engage in debate that we really need to properly assess our enemy. You and I, phg, might well disagree on this matter or that, but in essence are engaged in a cooperative, collaborative process whereby our differing views create a superior data set and allow for a superior solution. But at the direction of folks like Gingrich the GOP today and too many of it's adherents simply use language for connotation, and only allow pursuit of substantive inquiry so long as this maintains or supports connotations demonizing their opponents.

This being the case, look for our neo-con trolls to roll their eyes, sigh dismissively, and say, "But _of course_ *that* is different."

Isn't it time we stopped grappling with the sophists?
 

"It is hard to seriously argue that a Senator or Representative who declares a war to be lost and proposes surrender of territory to an enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy and undermining our troops in the field."

This is flat out STUPID and should result in Bart being permanently barred from ever posting here again.

Worse than being STUPID, it is surely calculated to be INSULTING in its "earnestness."

So according to Bart DePalma Reid, Murtha, Pelosi... in fact a majority of House Reps and Senators, including some Republicans, should be HUNG for treason.

Get out the rope Bart or STFU.
 

I've silently lurked at this blog for a long time, but Bart DePalma has tried my patience. "Aid and comfort" do not merely mean saying things publicly which (even though they're true!) might conceivably bring the enemy psychological encouragement. Rather, what the framers had in mind when drafting Art. III, sec. 3 was actually going over to the side of the enemy, declaring allegiance to them, and giving them material aid. Read Madison's Notes for August 20, 1787, and you will see that the framers intended "giving them aid and comfort" to be explanatory and restrictive of the phrase "in adhering to their enemies." Thus the two ways one can commit treason are by (1) waging war against the United States or (2) going over to the side of the enemy. Merely speaking out in such a way that (again) possibly may encourage the enemy is not treason and was not intended to be. And if one thinks about it even for a second, defining treason to include the statements of Reid et al. would run afoul of the First Amendment anyway.

I'm tired of your dishonesty, Bart DePalma.
 

>>travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans

Condi Rice just met with these state-sponsors of terror. She must be a triator. She is obviously giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I await her trial for treason.

Why must you adhere to our enemies, Condi? Why?
 

...you think they must be talking about next Tuesday? Get a grip

I will soon be curtailing my involvement here, just as I did earlier this year. But as I work to wind things down and put my energy elsewhere, let me suggest something which addresses the constant lure of this place: sophistry in action and how liberals must learn to cope with the rhetorical shenanigans of a certain class of miscreant. The quote above is an example. One highly partisan view of the topic at hand requires defense of Patterson's remarks. But as anyone who plays a little Go can tell you, sometimes you can win by reducing the opponent's territory more easily than by expanding your own. Having no where go to on the merits of Patterson's open call for naked fascism, a certain cowardly, lying cheat seeks instead to reduce the credibility of his interlocutors, and even here his pursuit is carried out more by connotation than by substantive dispute.

The psycho-social dynamics of trolling are well documented from the early age of the net. We really should none of us be susceptible to trolls nor able to get away with trolling. So my question is this: Why does a certain troll thrive here? The notion of "don't feed the troll" won't avail us much, especially as the worst vandal is dedicated, persistent, and fairly well groomed (perhaps from his experiences at being banned from other venues). He less flames than insinuates. It's fairly passive-aggressive. That makes it a bit harder to counter. But not impossible.

I suggest that the single greatest task of liberals/progressives today is to recognize when they are getting creamed on illegitimate connotative grounds even while crafting superior substantive rebuttals. We need to recapture the initiative, and that requires us to properly recognize the terrain and opponent. Not all opponents are enemies. Clobber me over the chess board and we can have a great time doing a post-mortem over a glass of beer. But some opponents are enemies, if they so define themselves and cannot be avoided then one must know how to disarm them so no one comes to any harm. Our troll is not stupid, just morally retarded; he needs protection from himself as much as anyone needs it from him, lest one day the policies he so earnestly argues for today come to be wielded by those who care not for the liberties and rights he takes so very for granted with respect to himself even as he argues their alienability with respect to others.
 

Bart wrote:
Fraud Guy said...

Bart, it is not our territory. The Iraqis want it back

Bart: The elected Iraqi government is sovereign over their territory.


Bart and I agree with Fraud Guy. None of the territory in Iraq is ours in any way whatsoever. So, leaving won't provide aid to any enemies at all. Thanks for clarifying that point, Bart.
 

PMS_Chicago said...

BD:As General David Petraeus reiterated in his most recent briefing (which these Dems who call the war lost or claim the US is in the middle of an "Iraqi civil war" did not attend), some 80-90% of the suicide bombers are foreign al Qaeda invading and murdering Iraqis much the same way they murdered our people on 9/11.

If you read it closely, you'll see that, for the General, the threat of al-Qaeda is not the "sensational attacks" that flood news stories, but the potential for al-Qaeda to ignite sectarian violence through those attacks.


Setting aside the 20,000 or so Iraqis whom al Qaeda has murdered in these attacks as inconsequential to your calculations, I agree that the possibility these attacks may create a larger civil war with even more murders is certainly an order of magnitude worse.

An even worse result for the US than an Iraqi civil war is if we retreat, surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and give them an enormous unearned victory to restore their recruiting and a safe haven from which to attack us.

If you pay attention to what the General says, it is clear that the problem all along has been sectarian violence, which certainly has been a goal of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but remains the metric by which our mission's success is measured.

Actually, that is the metric for US political success, not so much military success in Iraq against al Qaeda and the Sunni militias. The entire surrender movement Vietnam era playbook is to portray Iraq as a "lost civil war." Without the "lost civil war," the raison d'être for the proposed surrender is gone.

al Qeada is well aware of the surrender movement's playbook and has been avoiding our troops and instead attempting to start a civil war for the past three years. al Qaeda knows that they cannot defeat our troops and is banking that our morale will break. This effort culminated in the massive bloodshed before the 2006 elections, the timing of which was no accident.

The Surge is a reaction to al Qeada's strategy and its success in the 2006 elections. The effort to eliminate the sectarian violence is meant to take the wind out of the sails of the domestic surrender movement and allow the much longer war against al Qaeda to continue.
 

Garth said...

Bart: "It is hard to seriously argue that a Senator or Representative who declares a war to be lost and proposes surrender of territory to an enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy and undermining our troops in the field."

This is flat out STUPID and should result in Bart being permanently barred from ever posting here again.


I notice that nether Garth nor the others who have reacted to this statement can offer any rational argument showing the statement to be false apart from the usual name calling.

There simply is no way a rational person can truthfully say that a government leader of a country at war who calls the war "lost" when the military has never lost a battle and then offers legislation mandating the retreat from and surrender of the disputed territory to the enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy.

This is simply an undeniable fact.
 

Let us put this into context:

If the leadership of Congress in 1864 called the Civil War "lost" and passed legislation calling for the retreat of the Union Army from the Confederate states, would you consider such an action giving aid and comfort to the Confederacy?

If the leadership of Congress in 1918 called WWI "lost" and passed legislation calling for the retreat of the AEF from France, would you consider such an action giving aid and comfort to the Germans?

If the leadership of Congress in 1944 called WWII "lost" and passed legislation calling for the retreat of the US military from Europe and Asia, would you consider such an action giving aid and comfort to the Axis?

There is simply no contrary argument which can be made here.
 

Bart,

You compare giving up in Iraq now to giving up on the Civil War in 1964, giving up on WWII in 1944 or giving up on WWI in 1918. These dates are obviously significant. Taken to their logical conclusion, it would mean you believe that the surge, if unpeaded, will bring us victory next year. Is that your opinion?

And, as much to the point, how do you define victory? One of the things that makes this war so hard to win is that no one seems to know just what winning means.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Troll whistles in the dark, snappy melodies like, "This is simply an undeniable fact" and "There is simply no contrary argument which can be made here." The hope, of course, is that no one will notice that the cowardly, lying cheat only writes because indeed the fact has been denied and the contrary argument made in posts to which his words are feeble replies. Again, typical troll behavior, and I've never quite understood why it works.

Name calling? For myself it's only in service of inviting folks to look at the record of your mendacity and pusillanimity. Tell me, Bart, which words of the MCA give one rights to prove their citizenship when they are picked up and designated an Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatant in a good-faith error? You've had even more months to answer that question since last I asked. Well? After you answer that one, with text from the MCA if you can find it, then I might be interested in hearing your ravings about the possible necessity of open and naked fascism from the likes of you and "Buzz".
 

>>There is simply no contrary argument which can be made here.

Uh huh. To make your analogies even remotely relevant, you would have to switch them around:

What if in 1864 the Confederacy declared the war lost?

What if in 1918 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

What if in 1944 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

Would they have been giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy or just acknowledging reality?

You see, they actually lost those wars. The US, on the other hand, won the war in Iraq -- it just lost the occupation. Which all imperial powers do eventually.
 

What if in 1864 the Confederacy declared the war lost?

What if in 1918 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

What if in 1944 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?


Yeah, but what about Napoleon? He didn't give up and at Waterloo he.... Oh.
 

"Bart" DePalma says:

I notice that nether Garth nor the others who have reacted to this statement can offer any rational argument showing the statement to be false apart from the usual name calling.

I notice that "Bart" assiduously ignores my quoting of Petraeus above, and instead comes out with some manufactured "fact" about 20,000 Iraqi dead killed by "al Qaeda".

"Bart" is simply clueless on who's doing the mass of killing and why (and how, as I noted above).

He believes what he wants to believe, which is that the majoroty of the violence in Iraq is external, and due to "al Qaeda" ["... in Iraq", an organisation, if we may call it that, that didn't exist prior, and had its genesis in Ansar al-Islam in part]. But Petraeus doesn't believe that even, near as I can tell. The majority of killing is Iraqi on Iraqi, Sunni on Shi'ite and vice versa. Yes, it's true that the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" wants to foment such strife. But it would happen ... and has been happening ... without their instigation. And that is one of the fundamental problems, but one that "Bart" chooses to ignore (and one which the neocons and the Dubya maladministration ignored four years ago despite the counsel of wiser heads that this would indeed happen).

There's curing ignerrence, but there's no curing willful stoopidity (as exhibited by Bart"'s refusal to listen to the concretde objections of others here). And that is "Bart"'s real problem. Petraeus, while perhaps overly optimistic, at least isn't that deluded ... or disingenuous.

Cheers,
 

Enlightened Layperson said...

Bart: You compare giving up in Iraq now to giving up on the Civil War in 1964, giving up on WWII in 1944 or giving up on WWI in 1918. These dates are obviously significant. Taken to their logical conclusion, it would mean you believe that the surge, if unpeaded, will bring us victory next year. Is that your opinion?

I used these dates to show periods of time when the fighting was bloody but victory was essentially just a matter of time. That is where we are in Iraq right now, but with literally a tiny fraction of the casualties that we suffered in 1864, 1918 and 1944.

As to the timing of eventual victory, counterinsurgency operations take longer than conventional wars, so I would hardly predict victory over al Qaeda in Iraq by 2008.

We stumbled upon the key to victory a couple years ago by getting the Sunni involved in the political process. This alone did not assure victory. However, al Qaeda's reaction to Sunni involvement in the political process did provide a strategic turning point. Al Qaeda reacted by declaring war against several Iraqi Sunni tribes. This turned the Sunni against al Qaeda and caused the Sunni to join the police and army in far greater numbers than before. This was a decisive strategic error by al Qaeda because al Qaeda relied upon the Iraqi Sunni to shelter and support the foreign fighters.

al Qaeda replied to the pressure by throwing everything it had into turning Baghdad into a bloodbath to instigate a Shia retaliation against the Sunni so the Sunni would turn back to al Qaeda as an ally. The Shia retaliated, but the Sunni did not turn to al Qaeda yet.

However, if we retreat from Iraq, we leave our new Sunni allies in the lurch against al Qaeda and possibly a Shia purge. The Sunni will have no choice but to turn to al Qaeda to help against the Shia and we have our easily avoided nightmare scenario.

And, as much to the point, how do you define victory?

al Qaeda is has no place left to hide and is largely destroyed.

The suicide bombings decrease substantially and the Shia no longer have a reason to war against the Sunni.

The Sunni get a slice of the action in Iraq and cease most of their insurgency.

Iraq is going to suffer some level of violence for several years until the combatants get tired as in the Lebanon Civil War. However, if we can take care of al Qaeda, the bloodshed and instability can be substantially decreased in the next couple years and we can probably start withdrawing troops again. al Qaeda is the key.
 

zod said...

Bart: There is simply no contrary argument which can be made here.

Uh huh. To make your analogies even remotely relevant, you would have to switch them around:

What if in 1864 the Confederacy declared the war lost?

What if in 1918 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

What if in 1944 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

Would they have been giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy or just acknowledging reality?


Your comparisons prove my point.

The Confederacy and the Germans had been decisively defeated by those dates and were in full retreat. In stark contrast, our military in Iraq has not lost a single battle to the enemy. To acknowledge reality in Iraq is to recognize that our military has decimated the enemy and has it on the run.

You see, they actually lost those wars. The US, on the other hand, won the war in Iraq -- it just lost the occupation.

How? Who has defeated our military in Iraq?
 

bart: al Qaeda is the key.

Hah. al Qaeda is the boogey man. But how else can folks like Buzz and Bart hold their belief in open naked fascism without a boogey man with which to scare us all?

For the record, al Qaeda was never a threat to national security, save to the extent that formerly crypto-fascists such as Buzz and Bush gained power and credibility in the eyes of the masses. There was never an invading force. These are terrorists, guerrillas, not a group with which we can be at war. But, again, such distinctions are lost on the likes of Bart and Buzz and all the others who see in the then current crisis an opportunity to further their own repressive causes, be it malfeasance such as H.R. 3162 or a general increase in xenophobia.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

There simply is no way a rational person can truthfully say that a government leader of a country at war who calls the war "lost" when the military has never lost a battle ...

Not true here. Fallujah I didn't work so well.

Also, "Bart" pretends that guerrilla wars are "won" or "lost" the same way as WWI battles. Simply not true. In Vietnam, we controlled by day, and the VIet Cong by night, in wide swaths of the country.

... and then offers legislation mandating the retreat from ...

Not true here. The bill that the DOofus-In-Chief vetoed didn't "mandate[] retreat".

... and surrender of the disputed territory to the enemy ...

Who's the "enemy"? Petraeus's "dozens of foreign fighters"?!?!?

They're going to conquer and hold Iraq?!?!?

... is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy.

"Bart"'s disingenuously dropped his prior "adhering", and is back on the tired ol' RW meme "aiding and abetting".

This is simply an undeniable fact.

"Bart"'s the master of "framing"; in this case simply making sh*te up, and then slaying his exquisitely constructed "straw man". To the tilt, Don Quixote. There rest of the world (including Petraeus) has serious matters to attend to.

Cheers,
 

Bart: (quoting zod)"The US, on the other hand, won the war in Iraq -- it just lost the occupation."

(in his own voice)How? Who has defeated our military in Iraq?


Bart, is there a literacy requirement for the Colorado Bar? Zod said we won the war, which is to say, no one defeated our military. To say we have lost or are doomed to lose the occupation is, as you know, a turn of phrase, leading in to the observation that we should expect no more success from our imperialist adventures there as any other imperial force from history. I know it's trolling 101 to cherry pick, but, c'mon, at least try to maintain some credibility.
 

To acknowledge reality in Iraq is to recognize that our military has decimated the enemy and has it on the run. - Bart DePalma


Bwaaahahahahahhahahahahhahahhhhh...

Repeat after me for some deep, deep deprograming bart:

We have NOT decimated the enemy.

We do NOT have the enemy on the run.

We have killed over half a million iraqis and decimated their country.

We have leveled Fallujah in an attempt to decimate the enemy.

We have gone door to door in Iraqi neighborhoods and arrested suspected enemies by the tens of thousands, but we have not yet decimated the enemy.

The enemy is every Iraqi that wants us gone; ie. every Iraqi.

Go back to your Troll Masters and tell them you have failed.
 

Reid's statements are those of a high ranking U.S. Statesman commenting on the issue of the day, George W. Bush's fucked up mid-east fiasco.

He is attempting to develop a coherent national policy on one of the most pressing issues of the day. To compare his criticism of Bush's FAILED policies and his alernative plan developed with a close ear on what the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT AND FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC,....

To compare his comments to treason is vile. Despicable.

It is a comparison not intended to provoke thought or add to a thoughtful discussion.

It is a turd dropped in polite society.

And THAT is an undeniable fact.
 

"What if in 1864 the Confederacy declared the war lost?

"What if in 1918 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?

"What if in 1944 the German Reichstag declared the war lost?"

I'll answer Bart's questions. In each case, the politician in question would certainly be wrong on the merits. But being wrong on the merits is not the same thing as being treasonous. So the answer is no.

And you see, that's my fundamental problem with the American right on Iraq. If you guys want to argue that Harry Reid is wrong on the merits, fine, go ahead and do so. Point to whatever it is you think is going well in Iraq, or how the surge is going to work, or how Patraeus is the greatest general since Julius Caesar, or whatever.

But you guys don't want to have that argument. (Perhaps you think you would lose it.) So instead, you resort to the basest of tactics and accuse the opposition of treason.

Treason occurs when one levies war against the United States, or adheres to its enemies and materially supports them in a war(that's what giving "aid and comfort" means). An example of modern treason (though it was not charged) is John Walker Lindh. He clearly adhered to our enemy in wartime and aided their efforts against our forces.

A politician giving a speech is simply not a form of treason. Categorically. Even if you think that expressing that opinion might "objectively" aid the enemy in some way.

And accusing your political enemies of treason interferes with a very important debate over what the best course is in Iraq. In determining that, obviously, one question that MUST be asked and answered is "have we lost the war?". Thus, not only is someone not treasonous to say what Reid said-- it is fully in line with patriotic expression to bring this topic into the discussion.

And that is the worst thing about you, Bart. By pretermitting a necessary discussion, you actually make it more likely that we WILL "lose" a war, because in your world, nobody can bring that up into the discussion, which means that the steps necessary to avoid the possibility may never be considered.

There is a lot of debate about whether democracies are more or less effective at fighting wars. But this seems to me to be a very important strength-- and one that libelous accusations of "treason" will undermine.
 

Bart said:

Your comparisons prove my point.

The Confederacy and the Germans had been decisively defeated by those dates and were in full retreat. In stark contrast, our military in Iraq has not lost a single battle to the enemy. To acknowledge reality in Iraq is to recognize that our military has decimated the enemy and has it on the run.


Let me see--1918, Germany had just driven Russia out of the war, was mounting its largest and most effective offensive since the opening month, and Italy was wavering and collapsing in the South. The French had suffered a army-wide mutiny that led to massive reorganization and reconsolidation (retreat) on their front. Yes, it was obvious that Germany was losing.

At least you are no longer comparing Iraq to Vietnam, because obviously, our surrender there emboldened the VietCong with their Communist agenda, and our retreat allowed them to overthrow our allies in SE Asia and Oceania. Bart, it's horrible to consider that Australia is such a Communist enemy now, isn't it?
 

"It is hard to seriously argue that a Senator or Representative who declares a war to be lost and proposes surrender of territory to an enemy is not providing aid and comfort to that enemy and undermining our troops in the field."

If publicly speaking about a losing war is treason, then we must assert that sowing internal dissension by calling your fellow citizens traitors, by accusing your leadership of treason while carrying out their duties, is in and of itself treasonous behavior.

Once we take speech itself as treasonous, Bart and Powell have just strapped on a suicide vest. Yeah, it'll kill your enemies - but that's just a side effect of killing everyone. That's not just treason in the current war, but that's treason to the very stability of our system.

I just gotta love Bart. You know, he says he's basically a libertarian!

Is the pool still on?
 

As I posted before, the US Army and the Sunni allied and largely cleaned al Qaeda out of the so called "Sunni Triangle" otherwise known as Anbar province. al Qaeda fled to Diyala Province by the Iranian border.

Recently, the US Army entered into another treaty with the Sunni in Diyala Province against al Qaeda. Of course, our Green Zone hotle bound media did not pick up on this at all.

(Note: I had the honor of perviously serving with the current commander of US forces in Diyala, Col. David W. Sutherland. "Diamond Dave" was a company commander and I was a platoon leader in the 1/7 Infantry during the Persian Gulf War. Good luck and God Speed Dave!).

Sheiks Sign Peace Agreement

TIKRIT — In an effort to end tribal conflicts that have been occurring for decades, the paramount sheiks from the Karki and Shimouri tribes signed a peace agreement at the home of the Mujema tribal leader in Diyala province, Monday.

Sheik Thaer Ghadban Ibrahim, Karki paramount sheik, and Sheik Ahmad Abdullah Hassooni, Shimouri paramount sheik, have been meeting for the past three months to work out grievances between tribes.

By signing the agreement, the tribes promised to “consolidate and unify to battle all insurgents that penetrate among [their] tribes.”

“The people have no confidence in the terrorists’ ways and ultimate goals for death and destruction,” said Col. David W. Sutherland, 3rd Brigade Combat Team commander and senior U.S. Army officer in Diyala. “This initiative and agreement by the tribes shows their commitment to their people, this country’s stability, and a positive vision for the future.”

 

The National Review article may well be in the nature of a trial balloon.

There are some fairly strong indications that President Bush feels he is, by virtue of his position as the Unitary Executive, entitled to ignore laws he deems at odds with his vision for the country. In fact, he has said as much in recent days.

Given the powers granted him by the Congress since 9/11, particularly the ability to declare martial law on nearly any pretext, Bush would only being consistent if he decides the best interests of the country demand he issue such a declaration prior to the 2008 elections and retain his office in the years ahead.

I would expect increasing calls from the right for exactly this action as Republican prospects for 2008 become increasingly dim.

BTW, I note that Mr. DePalma's legal expertise seems to be playing out in the world of DWI/DUI defense. His website has full details.
 

One further aspect regarding the National Review article and the possibility of a Bush suspension of elections via martial law. The latter may possibly less dangerous.

In military coups managed by the CIA/DIA in the past one of the SOPs has been provision of lists of political opponents, including politicians, intellectuals and dissidents, to the coup principals so they may either imprison or eliminate those on the list. Presumably such a list already exists and is being updated daily.

Coupled with the ongoing construction of large holding camps currently being constructed, ostensibly for use by ICE for detention of illegal aliens, a military coup would be foolish to not use their list to aid in consolidating power.
 

Bart, in responding to PMS Chicago, I notice you avoided the final and really critical question: [I]f our mission is defined by reducing sectarian violence, how is that conceptually different for you from being "in the middle of a civil war"?

Pretending that what is going in in Iraq is the (presumably united) Iraqi people, backed by the US army, against at most a few thousand foreign Al-Qaeda fighters simply does not account for the facts. Iraqis have been kiling each other, lots of each other, for some time now. Let's hear something from you that takes that into account.
 

Enlightened Layperson said...

Pretending that what is going in in Iraq is the (presumably united) Iraqi people, backed by the US army, against at most a few thousand foreign Al-Qaeda fighters simply does not account for the facts. Iraqis have been kiling each other, lots of each other, for some time now. Let's hear something from you that takes that into account.

Where did I ever claim that Iraq was united or that Iraqis were not killing one another? I posted that foreign al Qaeda were doing most of the killing of Iraqi civilians with the intent to start a civil war between the Shia and Sunni, in which they have succeeded to a certain extent last year.

My point is the killing drops significantly if we can deal with al Qaeda suicide car bombing, which in turn reduces the pressure for Shia retaliation against the Sunni.

al Qaeda is not the only problem in Iraq, but it is the worst problem.
 

"My point is the killing drops significantly if we can deal with al Qaeda suicide car bombing, which in turn reduces the pressure for Shia retaliation against the Sunni.

al Qaeda is not the only problem in Iraq, but it is the worst problem."


Really, Bart? That little death squad problem is primarily a response to Al-Qaeda? Not internecine battling over who gets to direct oil money?

Talk about naivete. We're talking about potential wealth in the trillions, particularly if other reserves are dwindling. We're talking about grabbing the power class in a country and turning them into a minority. We're talking about decapitating a society and creating an unclear power vacuum. And someone (Not necessarily Someone) believes that the primary driver for violence is a fairly small external group that can be eliminated.

Isn't transmitting disinformation during war time treason? Particularly disinformation that will lead to an Afghanistan-Soviet style quagmire intended to impoverish the US while producing endless propaganda footage to be used against us?

Bart, are you workin' for Osama now?
 

Jesus Christ, what a load of horseshit. It's as if Jack doesn't even read his own blog anymore. What with all the talk of "impeachment" and "authoritarianism" and the need to amend the constitution, and other wacky fairy tales.

Hey, Jack, when you want to come back to reality, we can talk about a country where you liberals believe, well, in some non-alQaeda conspiracy behind 9/11, for example. See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/gaping_holes

Let us know when you come back to reality.
 

Is it my imagination, or has National Review gone completely bonkers?

It's your imagination they have gone completely bonkers; they've been completely bonkers for decades, moreso in the Bush II era.

Heck, didn't they recommend violent resistance to the toothless 1957 Civil Rights Act?
 

RandomSequence said...

Bart: "My point is the killing drops significantly if we can deal with al Qaeda suicide car bombing, which in turn reduces the pressure for Shia retaliation against the Sunni. al Qaeda is not the only problem in Iraq, but it is the worst problem."

Really, Bart? That little death squad problem is primarily a response to Al-Qaeda? Not internecine battling over who gets to direct oil money?


The sequence of events indicates that the former rather than the latter is the case.

Most of the Shia retaliation against the Sunni occurred after a massive al Qaeda terror campaign against Shia civilians culminating with the attack on the al-Askari shrine in Samarra.

The oil issue has been in the background since the liberation. I do not see the link between that ongoing issue and the recent recent Shia retaliation.
 

Blind Bart says:

"I do not see the link < between the oil issue and the violence in Iraq >"

The only question to be answered is whether the blindness is congenital or voluntary.
 

Bart: Most of the Shia retaliation against the Sunni occurred after a massive al Qaeda terror campaign against Shia civilians culminating with the attack on the al-Askari shrine in Samarra.

The oil issue has been in the background since the liberation. I do not see the link between that ongoing issue and the recent recent Shia retaliation.


Don't we recall that our vizier in Iraq was a certain Negroponte, who was associated with the death squads we funded back in the '80s in Central America? Isn't it more likely that the heating up of things has just made the death squads more visible, rather than changing the kill rates? I recall that in the aftermath of the Askari bombings it came out that internal security in Iraq had several hidden camps filled with Sunnis throughout Baghdad - I doubt that they were revealed right after being constructed. It's more likely that they had been active for several years, and the Sunni leadership decided to reveal them when the gloves came off after the bombings.

These games are subtle. Believing what is at the surface is insufficient.
 

Mr. DePalma:
The idea that suicide bombings are primarily the work of Al-Qaida is a falsehood, and you should know better.

"Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.

But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.

Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084

Cheers,
 

lakhim said...

The idea that suicide bombings are primarily the work of Al-Qaida is a falsehood, and you should know better.

Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'

"Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.

But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.


The Fedayeen Saddam was Saddam's private army of terrorists. Among them were foreign jihadis (al Qaeda?) which Iraq trained in suicide bombing.

[NPR continues:] Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq."

This is a classic example of a reporter making a statement which is not supported by the remainder of the article and then spinning the facts which undermine the reporter's claims.

Of the 351 suicide bombing attacks, the professor in charge of the Chicago project believes he has identified 55 or 15% of the bombers. Of the 55 bombers, only 13 (23%) have been identified as Iraqi while the other 42 (77%) are foreigners. There is no way to determine if this is a representative sample, but the numbers are not surprising.

All foreign fighters are al Qaeda.

Furthermore, al Qeada has run cells of Iraqi nationals in Iraq starting long before the liberation. Captured Iraqi militia documents indicate that Zarqawi was recruiting Iraqis to fight our troops in Afghanistan. Additionally, Zarqawi and the al Qaeda fleeing took over the Iraqi al Insar Islam terrorist group. See Linda Robinson's book Masters of Chaos.

Perhaps, most tellingly, al Qaeda is the only group taking credit for suicide bombings in Iraq. The Iraqi Sunni militias have always denied that they participate in these bombings.

If NPR had done some basic research, they would have included all of this in their report. Or maybe they did their research and left out all the key information which did not fit in their story line.
 

Bart: The Fedayeen Saddam was Saddam's private army of terrorists. Among them were foreign jihadis (al Qaeda?) which Iraq trained in suicide bombing.

Oh, that's just absolute BS. That's like accusing the Communists of training right-wing death squads, or the Birchers of giving money to the UN, just the basest kind of nutty conspiracy theorizing.

All foreign fighters are al Qaeda.

So the administration lied when they said the Iranians were training and infiltrating the Shia militias? Or are you going to advance the conspiracy theory that Iran is in league with AQ, which was in league with Sadam? Are the Israeli's behind all this, and the Rothchilds too?

Bart, when you advance a conspiracy theory, you have to show common interest, a history of cooperation and simplicity, instead of "They're all agin' us, so they must be in cahoots!" Lordy, the paranoia on the right, it's an insanity more than an ideology.
 

RandomSequence said...

Bart: The Fedayeen Saddam was Saddam's private army of terrorists. Among them were foreign jihadis (al Qaeda?) which Iraq trained in suicide bombing.

Oh, that's just absolute BS. That's like accusing the Communists of training right-wing death squads, or the Birchers of giving money to the UN, just the basest kind of nutty conspiracy theorizing.


Hardly.

These are admissions in Iraqi intelligence documents which were picked up by the Brit media, if not ours. There is more...

The Iraqi Mukharabat intelligence agency has long been known to have trained terrorists.



Here is another Iraqi intelligence document discussing the training of foreign jihadis.

Moreover, these foreign suicide bombers were not only intended for operations within Iraq, but also to strike "US interests."

Bart: All foreign fighters are al Qaeda.

So the administration lied when they said the Iranians were training and infiltrating the Shia militias?


There are no Iranians fighting our troops in Iraq of which I am aware. The military has captured Iranian trainers and supply personnel.
 

Bart,

Now-now, you know better than to use Free Republic as a source. What, you want DailyKos diaries to become admissible also?
 

RandomSequence said...

Bart, Now-now, you know better than to use Free Republic as a source. What, you want DailyKos diaries to become admissible also?

The translator's name is Joseph Shahda. He is an engineer of Lebanese decent. The media have interviewed him extensively and have had the opportunity to check his work. Shahda's posts all link to the original Iraqi documents so his translations are easy to check.
 

While Jack is is bloviating about NR going "completely bonkers", his friends in the Democratic party have lost their minds. See a survey from Rasmussen:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

Maybe we should go back to discussing what people have learned from Fox News. There's an unhinged contingent in this country, angry and incoherent and authoritarian and irrational. It's called the Democratic party.
 

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

This makes perfectly good sense if the respondents interpreted "knew about" to mean "had warning of". The unhinged contingent of the GOP can't seem to consider reasonable possible alternatives on any subject, even a poll.
 

Mark, you're perfectly within your rights to believe that a substantial percentage of the Democratic party is incapable of answering a relatively simple and straightforward question, and instead answered a different question. I find that more appealing in many ways than believing that so many Democrats believe the well-known and well-publicized--especially in supposedly mainstream left wing publications--conspiracy theories about 9/11. We're talking about an incapacity in either case, but only one is morally troubling.
 

Mark, you're perfectly within your rights to believe that a substantial percentage of the Democratic party is incapable of answering a relatively simple and straightforward question, and instead answered a different question. I find that more appealing in many ways than believing that so many Democrats believe the well-known and well-publicized--especially in supposedly mainstream left wing publications--conspiracy theories about 9/11. We're talking about an incapacity in either case, but only one is morally troubling.

Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are routinely mocked on Dem sites; even banned on some. It's absurd to assert that they are "publicized" there.

The question was ambiguous. What does it mean to ask if Bush "knew" about 9/11 beforehand? It's obvious that the respondents had trouble with the phrasing. About 1/3 understood it as you suggest, and they answered "no". About 1/3 apparently thought it meant "knew enough that he should have anticipated a problem". They answered "yes". The remaining third either truly didn't know or were confused by the question and punted.

If anyone wants to get a true answer to the question, they'd better ask it more precisely. The only problematic moral issue here is the assumption of bad faith (Dems are all fools) in place of more reasonable explanations (the question was poorly worded).
 

Thomas:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

I'm not saying that Dubya knew all the "five 'W's and 'H'", but care to answer why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in the summer of 2001?

And why did Dubya give a performance bonus to the guy that sat on the Rowley eports from Minneapolis (while federal wages had been frozen)?

I'd say that there's still some question as to exactly how much was known. It's ignoring the obvious to assert that the Dubya maladministration knew nothing (unless you posit that they're congenitally incapable of knowing anything), when we have the PDB in public saying that "Bin Laden [was] Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

So is there a basis for this common perception? I'd say so....

Cheers,
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home