NEWS FLASH!... I Agree With the Post!
Help me mommy, I never agree with the Washington Post. However, the Editorial Board today does an outstanding job critiquing the quality of discourse we are currently having over Iraq, chastising both sides of the aisle for the conduct of this debate. Below is possibly the best line I've read from a major paper over about what is going on.
Which is an outstanding point. I've made it in articles and in a few comments on here, that I believe the DNC's whole "Bush Lied" strategy is based on picking up seats, not the best interest of anyone.
The final statement is also very true, and not something I expected to read from the Post:
Maybe though, the sentiment about congress is spreading, The Chicago Sun Times Editorial today makes many of the same points as the post.
Newsweek has an article that may show Iraq is closer to working on it's own than people think, in that they have negotiated some rules with Iran for dealing with certain "less than desirable" groups crossing each others borders.
Any bets on Daily Kos or other left wing blogs beating the hell out of the Post over this?
But what is at stake is not an election but a war in which American
soldiers are being killed and wounded almost every day and in which one possible
outcome is a major victory for the Islamic extremist movement that carried out
the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Those losses won't be stemmed, nor the dangers
averted, by attack rhetoric or sound bites that deliberately distort the facts.
Leaders of both parties know that, of course. Which raises the question: Is
their priority to win in Iraq -- or in next year's midterm elections?
Which is an outstanding point. I've made it in articles and in a few comments on here, that I believe the DNC's whole "Bush Lied" strategy is based on picking up seats, not the best interest of anyone.
The final statement is also very true, and not something I expected to read from the Post:
I again agree, what we really need to be having is a serious debate about what milestones need to be met to win in Iraq; so we can be secure in our knowledge that it won't become al Zarqawi and Bin Laden's playground when we leave.If there is to be any chance of that war being won, the United States will have to commit its own forces to the fight for years, though perhaps not at current levels. The alternative is to risk a defeat that would be devastating to U.S. security. That's a hard truth to face: It can't be done amid a partisan free-for-all.
Maybe though, the sentiment about congress is spreading, The Chicago Sun Times Editorial today makes many of the same points as the post.
Newsweek has an article that may show Iraq is closer to working on it's own than people think, in that they have negotiated some rules with Iran for dealing with certain "less than desirable" groups crossing each others borders.
Any bets on Daily Kos or other left wing blogs beating the hell out of the Post over this?
posted by Crazy Politico at 6:11 AM
9Comments:
Ouch - My fucking eyes are being burned by the sun's glare!!!!!!!
Whoa, CP, yellow is NOT a good background! Just a little friendly criticism, bro!
Now I'll try to read the piece....
Okay, I'll go back to white. It may be my monitor, which is a little on the dark side at times.
Thanks!
This is a great editorial.
I'm sure Kos will have a field day with it.
Where the hell did I put my shades.....
Whew, unfortunately, the damage to my retinas I fear, is permanent. My attorney will be contacting you shortly....
LOL
Your blog has a great look like this!
Yeah, you know, because nothing the GOP does in running the war is political. Except for the beginning when he cherry picked intelligence, sometimes even discredited intel or when he used the democrats who voted to give bush the authority to go to war, by immediatly and unilaterally invading, which they never thought he'd do, or denouncing the dems at every turn for being french, or not injuring themselves enough in combat to get a purple heart, according to people that have never been there, or recently when they decried murtha for his redeployment strategy, when later we learn they had a early 2006 pull out likely planned anyway, and the whole vote was a sham to discredit the dems. I could go on, but why?
that would be the "cherry picked" intel that the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 17-0 wasn't cherry picked, and wasn't used by anyone for political gain, right.
And exactly how is waiting from Oct 2002 (congressional vote) until March 2003 "immediate", are you on a different calender than the rest of us?
List of Reports On WMD Intel
British Butler Report: "In General, We Found That The Original Intelligence Material Was Correctly Reported In [Joint Intelligence Committee] Assessments. ... We Should Record In Particular That We Have Found No Evidence Of Deliberate Distortion Or Of Culpable Negligence. ... We Found No Evidence Of JIC Assessments And The Judgements Inside Them Being Pulled In Any Particular Direction To Meet The Policy Concerns Of Senior Of?cials On The JIC." ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, p. 110)
Robb-Silberman Commission: "The Commission Found No Evidence Of Political Pressure To Influence The Intelligence Community's Pre-War Assessments Of Iraq's Weapons Programs." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05)
Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report: "The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)
Senate Report: "The Committee Found No Evidence That The Vice President's Visits To The Central Intelligence Agency Were Attempts To Pressure Analysts, Were Perceived As Intended To Pressure Analysts By Those Who Participated In The Briefings On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs, Or Did Pressure Analysts To Change Their Assessments." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)
It's just astonishing that you guys don't *care* about the truth.
Butler was a whitewash by the way. You need to bear in mind that the same people lied to Lord Butler that lied in the first place.
Some of the things that they said we *know* to have been untrue. We know, for instance, that it was not true that the aluminium tubes *could only be used for nuclear weapons*. They had intel that expressed the view that not only was that not true, but that they couldn't be used for nukes. Yes, they had intel that backed their claims. So fucking what? It's easy to find someone who'll say what you want. In the administration's case, a drunk Iraqi liar and Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted fraudster, his boys. That's not how you work it if you're doing it honestly. It's astonishing to me that having been lied to, you guys are *so* partisan that you do not want it to be ended, those responsible punished, but you want to fucking reward them for it and you attack those who want to rescue your democracy from people who have no regard for it.
Is it really that important to you guys that the poor don't get healthcare?
Just recently, a lie was exposed. It's a textbook case. The Pentagon denied that your forces used white phosphorus as a lethal weapon in Fallujah. Bloggers found an article by an artillery officer, explaining how he used it against insurgents. The Pentagon had to admit it had lied. It's all there, but if you don't want to see it, you never will.
"Most of the major key judgments... were overstated... or not supported by [the intel".
http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf
That particular committee slaughtered the intelligence community, and ignores the pressure on them to make a case for war -- in other words, it says what they did but not why. It was a whitewash. Your senate committees have all been in the Bush era.
The committe voted 17-0, including the 8 democrats, so it's hardly a committee made of of Bush lackies.
Post a Comment
<< Home