Utterly Meaningless

Well, al-Qaeda’s plan involved sort of a win-win for them. You topple the towers, and then a) you win popular support if the US invades, or b) you win if the US doesn’t invade, showing them to be weak and cowable.

So, we started invading and declaring we’d fight terrorism wherever we find it.

And not one single popular uprising has toppled any Arab or muslim government. In fact, if anything, the govts of places like Saudi Arabia are working more closely with us to get rid of Al Qaeda.

I’m thinking that no matter how upset you and I get about the agenda-driven blinder-wearing one-sided liberal (etc.etc.etc) US media, folks in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc don’t care much. They care more that one mass-transit bombing changed Spain’s government. They look more closely at the new Iraqi government, for signs that the Sunni representation actually has some power over the Sunni insurgency.

Rob
(probably minority view on this blog)

You think this is ’68? And after the mid-terms it won’t be the loyal opposition so we can finally get serious about fighting terrorism. Bush and the neocons have pissed away 5 years.

We beat Germany and Japan faster than that.

Daryl, did you just skip right over the 90s?? Remind me what great plan you and your new pary brethren have again, and if it’s so great where has it been all this time ( since Jummy Carter didn’t get Iran under control way back when he wasn’t the loyal opposition either.)

Back when Ted Koppel rose to prominence but didn’t have the answers either. I don’t CARE who has the answer but I sure would like to hear it!

Do I know the solution to fighting jihadism? No. But I do know starting wars in Iraq (and Syria? and Iran?) isn’t going to help. Last I heard, Osama was hanging out in Pakistan (our ally). You know, that unstable country that already has atomic weapons. And is gearing up to produce 20 Pu bombs per year.

If I were in charge, I think I’d be spending my energy on dealing with the sub-continent.

Different times, different war. We’re fighting individuals or small autonomous groups, not nation-states. What would bombing get us? What is it getting the Israelis except for world condemnation and boosting Hezbollah’s reputation.

4th gen warfare requires a different way of fighting. And thinking. The neocons (led by Bush & Cheney) have shown no such ability.

I’m not really advocating anything in particular.

Yes you are. They’re called War Crimes.

I’m waiting for the Connecticut primary before I say anything one way or another about what the Democrats will do if they take back the House this fall.

If Joe Lieberman gets pitched from the Democratic Party, I suspect he’ll be back as an Independent. (I’d vote for him!) I think he’ll win the primary, though–and if he does, I’m open to Daryl’s input on how the Democrats could do a better job of winning this war.

But if Lieberman loses and Pelosi takes over as Speaker, I’m going to need some serious help to understand how that makes us better off.

I think he’ll win the primary

Don’t bet on it.

But if Lieberman loses and Pelosi takes over as Speaker, I’m going to need some serious help to understand how that makes us better off.

How ’bout some oversight for an out-of-control Executive Branch? How ’bout some fiscal sanity? Are you such a partisan that you think the GOP has done a good job in its stewardship of EVERYTHING for the last 5+ years? Personally, I can’t come up with very many (if any) things that I would list as positives.

“Are you such a partisan . . .?”

Good question, that I hope every person is directing to the bathroom mirror before flinging it back and forth across the barricades.

Listing what doesn’t work and calling for things like “sanity” absent a positive plan proven to work any better, is just as partisan, just as belief-based (as in not scientific) and just as exasperating for the swelling ranks of folks who see partisanship itself as the increasingly obvious out-of-control insanity . . .

Or maybe there’s a nonparty party I don’t know about yet? – Independents and Libertarians come close, I guess — if that set of beliefs ever gets enough party discipline to actually rise to power, the farce will be complete.

Good analysis. I question, though, whether we even have a pro-US government in Iraq. Maliki pointedly has refused to criticize Hezbollah, the government plays footsie with Iran, and the country seems to be run by anyone but the government everywhere outside the Green Zone.

Civil war is inevitable at this point. As is, I believe, the ultimate dissolution of the country. We only postpone the inevitable at this point at a huge cost of lives and money.

The Bush Administration’s “solution” in Iraq seems to be a perfect example of the defintion of insanity.

I question whether we have a pro-US government here, and the civil war I fear is inevitable is — well, let’s just say I don’t need to get my feet wet or pack a lunch to get there.

WaPo’s Howard Kurtz re MSM Rs and Ds:

“While the percentage of those who say they regularly listen to National Public Radio has doubled since 1994, that audience now tilts more to the left, with nearly twice as many Democrats (23 percent) as Republicans (13 percent).”

When I do this arithmetic, more than half say we are NEITHER. Which suggests to me we’re ready for some REAL intelligent design, to think up some new equations and operations, something more progressive than continuing to part-ition every choice and circumstance, everywhere on earth, into part-ies fighting political-religious wars. The people seem to lose no matter which party “wins.”

I, for one, have to admit it’s a mess.

If this were the middle of Africa, and all we were looking at was Hutus and Tutsis, we could ignore and hope it goes away. There are places like Northern Ireland that just drag on like this for centuries.

But, sticking to the honest question part of all this–the Hutus never blew up any real estate in New York. The Tutsis aren’t building nuclear weapons. And the Ulstermen don’t control any strategic assets that the entire planet depends on.

So… is the mess in the Middle East a problem the world can go back to ignoring? If we let Saddam out of prison today and gave him his country back, would our children thank us for it? Or would they label us the next-generation Chamberlain, looking for “peace in our time” at any cost?

This is an honest question! I look at somebody like Joe Lieberman and say, “Here is an earnest man who thinks this matters and wants to get it right.” He seems to be struggling with this as seriously as anybody I know. Yet he’s in trouble in his primary BECAUSE he’s struggling with this stuff.

I look at somebody like Joe Lieberman and say, “Here is an earnest man who thinks this matters and wants to get it right.” He seems to be struggling with this as seriously as anybody I know. Yet he’s in trouble in his primary BECAUSE he’s struggling with this stuff.

WRONG!!! He’s in trouble not just for his position on Iraq. Hell! Half the likely candidates for the Democratic nomination in ’08 were and/or are supporters (including HRC). Lieberman is in trouble because he continuously went out of his way to support GOP talking points while stabbing other Democrats in the back. His Dec. ’05 Op/Ed in the NYT basically accused anti-war Democrats of treason (Now, where have we heard that before?) Coming from GOP hacks, it’s excusable as hackdom. From a Democrat it was inexcusable and unforgivable.

And there’s a long list beyond Iraq where Lieberman has been equally at odds with the Party’s base. So, it’s not just Iraq and Joe’s “principled” stand (which, BTW, he tossed overboard yesterday in desperation.)

As to your honest question, if we could go back to before this misguided misadventure in Iraq, I think our children would indeed be better off than they otherwise will be. The neocons, though, have kicked over the hornets’ nest. And now they want to compound the error by attacking Iran and Syria (or asking Israel to do it for us (same difference)). We may indeed end up with the World War they seem to be hoping for.

God help us and our children!