Fear, Loathing
Pelosi, eager to show progress before departing on monthlong vacay with U.S. troops in the field, plans another surrender vote today (scroll to bottom). Or does she? There’s been some waffling. Indecision, panic, not exemplary leadership qualities but perhaps to be excused in desperate times. Or not. Angry mandate bestower:
What a weak Congress we have! And we thought we were cleaning house when we voted in a new Congress last November!
Meanwhile, Surber with the latest on poll governance, and desperation as those who practice it see their numbers heading south:
The Surge is working. The initial success on the field by the American army is splitting the Democratic caucus in the House between those who want to Lose At Any Cost and the Weathervanes Who Follow The Polls.
Those polls are bad. Only 3% of Americans approve of the Democratic Congress’s handling of the war. Bush is at 24% in this category. Overall, Bush has better poll numbers than the Democratic Congress.
Rank-and-file Democrats already are worrying about the fate of all incumbents in 2008. They see the shift in public support. 42% now think the war was a good idea, up from 35% in May. These Democrats are tacking back.
The Rabid Dog Democrats see it too, and are upping the ante to out now. They must strike while the iron is tepid. If they wait till September, their surrender will be surrendered.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:16 am Comments (32) on Thursday, August 2, 2007
32 Responses to “Fear, Loathing”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
This war against the war is lost. – H. Reid
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
I don’t believe in Leadership By Polling™, and seldom indulge in troll baiting, but…..
“Overall, Bush has better poll numbers than the Democratic Congress. ”
I eagerly await further “gems of wisdom” from His Mightiness, THE ALPHTARD™.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Web Reconnaissance for 08/02/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Can’t believe Jules used his first link to comment on Pelosi’s demand that the military provide a redployment plan, and ignore the lead:
“Iraq’s main Sunni Arab political bloc withdrew from the government yesterday”
Doesn’t that spell an end to everything the Surge was supposed to be about?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am
That’s OK, corndog. After all, the Sunnis are simply following the lead of the Dhimmicrats anyway.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
As for the lasting significance of the actions by the Sunni faction, you’d probably do as well with some I Ching throws or tea leaves. It appears to underline that short-term progress on the Iraqi national or federal level is unlikely, but even that’s assuming quite a bit, since parliamentary brinksmanship sometimes precedes compromise. The event doesn’t say much of anything about the surge strategy or Iraq’s mid- to long-term prospects.
It’s a rather dysfunctional, to say the least, parliamentary system. The Sunnis withdrew from Maliki’s coalition – they didn’t withdraw from the political process. Possibilities include concessions sufficient to get them back, a re-arrangement of the coalition, and the fall of Maliki’s government.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 am
““Iraq’s main Sunni Arab political bloc withdrew from the government yesterday”
Doesn’t that spell an end to everything the Surge was supposed to be about?”
No, quite the contrary.
First, what you’re referencing isn’t a ’surge’ matter at all. Spend some time understanding the benchmarks that September’s progress report will address and the distinction between the military surge benchmarks and the political ones. Petraeus will deal with the military surge benchmarks. Your reference falls under the Iraqi political benchmarks that the US ambassador to Iraq will report on.
Anyone who’s followed where this bloc was coming from and their demands realizes it’s similar to Sadr’s bloc leaving the government back in the spring – POSITIVE indication that Maliki is serious about opposing and marginalizing the political forces that have no interest in Iraq succeeding except on their terms exclusively. It’s an indication that the Iraq government is meeting the political benchmarks set by the administration (not by congress by the way) and will be reported as such in September just as marginalizing Sadr politically will be.
Now it is true that what you reference is being cast in a manner to aid the spin of white to black as the Dem leadership continues it’s attempts to head off the September reports, (getting rather desperate as the clocks ticks down too).
You’ll get it if you’re willing to use information to think for yourself. For example, the lead you quote says it’s the ‘main’ Sunni bloc. It’s a misleading characterization of a marriage of convenience between several Sunni groups with similar agendas – most importantly to release their militiamen from prison. It was the largest single Sunni bloc – but still held only 44 or so seats in the Iraqi parliament (Sadr had about that or a few less), and have been unable to get any other of the Sunni groups in the Iraqi parliment to support their agenda. They took a gamble and gave Maliki some ultimatums – notably release the fighters associated with their faction from prison, or, by cracky, they’d show everybody by going home. They went home.
Had Maliki ACCEDED to their demands, there would have been an influx of Sunni terrorists back onto the streets with a related negative impact on the surge. This is why I said quite the contrary above
You should have discarded your filters and thought it through on the merits of the information itself. That’s your recurring problem.
(I rather expected the resident worm, alphavictim, to be the first one to try running with this. I suppose it’s too soon in the news cycle for him to find someone to tell him what to think about it.)
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
OMT,
I think your analysis, though illuminating, may somewhat oversimplify – something which is virtually inevitable for any attempt to analyze Iraqi politics from the outside. Those seeking bad news to prop up the American defeatist coalition against recent setbacks have seized upon this item and tried to blow it out of proportion, but the problem remains that the Maliki government has, to this point, sought to rule by consensus, yet has been plagued by factionalism. In a context like this one, the two are almost biconditional up to and sometimes passing across the breaking point.
Have you been following the political situation in Iraq closely enough to have any guess as to what specifically might force and/or enable the national government to approach the admittedly over-stressed benchmarks (Oil Law, local elections, etc.), and when that might occur?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
OMT,
Please watch and learn how McLeod does when analyzing things. He’s not looking at how various groups may “spin” something, but instead looks at what the likely reactions are among the important players.
OMT says: “Spend some time understanding the benchmarks that September’s progress report will address and the distinction between the military surge benchmarks and the political ones”
But my comments had nothing to do with reports. I talking about the purpose of the Surge, which was to give the political blocs “breathing space” to work out their differences and form a functioning government. This development, if you read Jules’ link, makes the Maliki government into a powerless coalition, utterly unable to do this.
Instead, OMT calls this a ” POSITIVE indication that Maliki is serious about opposing and marginalizing the political forces that have no interest in Iraq succeeding except on their terms exclusively. It’s an indication that the Iraq government is meeting the political benchmarks”
Not according to Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister Baram Salih, who said “The crisis is grave, and its implications should not be underestimated”. And apparently President Bush isn’t as joyous about the development either, since he’s reportedly been on the phone with Maliki and others to urge them to bargain with the Sunnis.
You would think that would set off alarm bells for you, OMT, showing that maybe your analysis is off. But it doesn’t look like you spend much time on trivial noises like that.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“…the problem remains that the Maliki government has, to this point, sought to rule by consensus, yet has been plagued by factionalism.”
And now a little less factionalism. But still a good point and one that does have to be looked at in context in the September reports. I realize that you grasp this but it is being purposely and studiously ignored in the narrative the left would have us swallow. It can’t be stressed enough in opposition to that narrative that, despite the efforts to cast them differently , the reports in September will be progress reports, not end of term grades. They will not be yes/no, leave/stay assessments, but rather whether progress to date on the sets of military and political benchmarks warrants continuing the current level of effort or not. It’s in the vein of progress reports.
Drawing that into this:
“Have you been following the political situation in Iraq closely enough to have any guess as to what specifically might force and/or enable the national government to approach the admittedly over-stressed benchmarks (Oil Law, local elections, etc.), and when that might occur?”
Yes, I’ve been following it, and no, I can’t defensibly guess what might force the government to meet the benchmarks. And being honest, I’m not sure when Maliki’s government might meet them nor have any real faith that they are capable of meeting them in the long run until the military situation stabilizes and changes the political dynamics. I think they are too aggressive as a measure of whether we should continue to work with them on the political side as long as the destabilizing political forces in Iraq maintain the hope that the Dem leadership will hand them the keys militarily. If the Dem leadership does not realize this, they should. I think they do and are continuing their political grandstanding in spite of it.
I think that if administration intended the political benchmarks to be too aggressive as motivation – my opinion for what it’s worth – it was a mistake to do so in temporal conjunction with the surge. It would have been smarter if not politically expedient to make sure the horse is healthy before trying to draw the cart. As it stands, it only gives ammo to the opposition here and there.
I’m hoping that the political report in September will show sufficient progress on the political front that the expected significant progress on the military front will suffice to buy the time to change the political dynamics. I use the terms sufficient and significant purposefully as we’ve had hints the last time congress got first hand reporting from the US Ambasador and Petraeus that should be the expectation (Biden’s outburst notwithstanding). There’s every indication that the line the Dem leadership will take will be Biden’s.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
‘I talking about the purpose of the Surge, which was to give the political blocs “breathing space” to work out their differences and form a functioning government.’
Well, you agree with one of my points. There’s hope yet. But you weren’t talking about any such thing originally and it doesn’t buy you anything to try using MacLeod to cover your butt for blowing the distinction between the military surge benchmarks and political benchmarks.
Look, corndog. I have seen you make cohesive and well reasoned arguments. The thread on the Koran flushing is a good example. In that thread you stressed that no good and defensible position that flushing the Koran wasn’t hate related could be made GIVEN THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
But you contradict that respect for facts and treatment of information when it comes to anything to do with the administration and it’s policies and activities – no matter what subject those policies pertain to. This is because you filter out and discard information that doesn’t support your predisposed interpretation and then both make indefensible connections between and assign unsupported significance to the information you don’t filter out.
For instance, you say that Jules’ link supports your view that it’s a negative indicator. Why? Because the article says that is how the information should be interpreted? Why not interpret it on it’s own merits without accepting the articles filtering simply because it agrees with your predisposition that the administration must fail and so the surge must fail? The information is there with a little side research. I did it. You could have.
In other words – do you even know what the Sunni bloc demanded and whether acceding to those demands would have been a positive or negative? You didn’t. You were just parroting and running with the article’s lead. You aren’t interested in or perhaps just not processing information contrary to your predisposed interpretation.
So Bush wants Maliki to bargain. Does that mean that he wants Maliki to agree to the Sunni bloc’s demands? You’re inferring that. Why would he do that? To protect the surge? Releasing the terrorists would do no such thing. So wouldn’t the interpretation that he wants Maliki to bargain to keep them in the political process without acceding to demands that terrorists be released and so threaten the surge be the logical unfiltered interpretation?
I arrived at that interpretation as soon as I read the article and tracked the background info. Not because I let the information organs tell me what to think, but in spite of that effort. And because nothing else makes sense. No other position is defensible logically. More telling, no other interpretation would agree with even your position that the administration is trying to protect the surge. Your filtering doesn’t take you that far. Too much information has already been discarded
We went through this on other threads. You’re tiresome not because you’ve no more ability than to be a marching moron like alphavictim, but because you do have more ability but seem determined to surrender it.
I think I’ve mentioned this to you before, or at least in some context on this site. You might be very surprised about my general politics and my opinion about some of the moves and people connected with the current administration. But I will be d**ned if I will let the self-destructive and partisan insanity I’ve seen become so pervasive in the last few years that it threatens every one of us guide my interpretation of events and information. Nor will I not stand in opposition to the threat that people who do embrace so witlessly.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
If the Dem leadership does not realize this, they should. I think they do and are continuing their political grandstanding in spite of it.
I agree, OMT, which makes this Democratic leadership one of the most dishonest ever to be elected, IMHO. It’s also interesting that the worst thing a Pelosi supporter can bring himself to say about her is that she’s “afraid” of Republicans.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I wrote the last comment without even my usual poor vetting. I thinks it’s clear enough though, and if not, well, so it goes as I’m off for a long weekend in the sun.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
It is very well written, OMT, and an excellent analysis/critique of corndog’s thought process…..and a clear diagnosis of Bush Derangement Syndrome in all but name. Thank you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I think you mean Bush Mancrush Syndrome, Jeffy.
Once you accept the fact that our troops will be leaving Iraq, you’ll realize the sooner they do so, the better.
Unless you’re making a buck from the fiasco, of course.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
OMT,
Everything that my last post asked for you to do was answered in your next post to MacLeod.
Apparently, on rethought, you don’t think it was a great development that the Sunnis pulled out. It’s fine to rethink. But you don’t have to posture one way for me because you feel you have to, and then in another post state how you really feel and, in fact, what the facts should be telling you: that this is a really bad development. Or, as you later say, “I can’t defensibly guess what might force the government to meet the benchmarks. And being honest, I’m not sure when Maliki’s government might meet them nor have any real faith that they are capable of meeting them in the long run”
That, of course, is the diametric opposite of what you said to me: “It’s an indication that the Iraq government is meeting the political benchmarks set by the administration (not by congress by the way) and will be reported as such in September just as marginalizing Sadr politically will be.”
The sad part is, if you’d just responded to me in a straightforward, non-pretentious or condescending way*, we could have had a decent discussion about the facts. As it is, you seem terribly interested in other people’s postures and spins and “narratives,” (about which I could really care less) and not so much on the facts that are at hand. Good to see you finally laying out your honest interpretation in your last post, though, and I welcome that, as I welcome most who disagree with me.
Just ask Jeffy.
* For instance, you say, “Why not interpret it on it’s own merits without accepting the articles filtering simply because it agrees with your predisposition that the administration must fail and so the surge must fail? The information is there with a little side research. I did it. You could have.” Actually, my predisposition was that the Surge was the only chance available, given the resources and personalities. As I said here at the start of the Surge, it was pathetically limited in order to achieve what it’s supposed to, so I doubted it would work. But if it does fail, there’s nothing but very bad options left. So here’s hoping for success, and also for the courage it will take to recognize if it’s time to move on. It’s therefore critical to look at the evidence coldly, without worry about “narrative” or “posture.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“That, of course, is the diametric opposite of what you said to me”
In a fast check before I leave. I’ll again say:
Give me a break. Admitting that one doesn’t know what it will take to finally meet a benchmark is not inconsistent with recognizing indications of progress towards meeting it. Much less diametrically opposed. Jeez.
And I’m always condescending towards useful fool types. They do anything but look at evidence coldly when it doesn’t suit their conclusion.
Anyway, enjoy your weekend.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Alfa Broderick “angry mandate bestower” seems braindead.
Am I missing something ?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“Once you accept the fact that our troops will be leaving Iraq, you’ll realize the sooner they do so, the better.”
Huh. So I guess when I was recently alerted – it must have been a mistake to say “Iraq” – maybe they meant “Darfur”? And then when I was given my date for mobilization, it must have been a typo? So when I go to Iraq very early next year – I’ll have to fight against a veritaable human tide, heading the other direction, yes?
Alf – howzabout you leave the prognosticating business for something you might be a tad more successful at – multi-level marketing or somesuch.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Haha, Maj. John,
Congress hasn’t passed the FY2008 defense bill yet.
Even if you guys do get another year of government subsidies for your failed social experiment/wonderful adventure, you’ll still face a “veritable human tide heading the other direction.”
They’ll be the Iraqi civilians fleeing the charnal house your kind turned Iraq into.
Don’t look ‘em in the eye as you ride past them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
STT!
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
A “charnal house” ?!
And it was…what…under Saddam and his sons, hanging “dissidents” from the ceiling by their testicles or Uday having fun torturing his would be “Olympic team” with acid drips ?
Halabja, Anfal ? Where Chemical Ali concocted potions to see how big the “mass kill” could be ?
Were you protesting in those daze ?
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
So “my kind” turned Iraq into a charnal house, eh alp? I simply must remember to teach the IA to set bombs off in crowds of civilians, saw heads off of hostages and attack infrastructure – thanks for the reminder!
You were always a bit dippy when you trolled PW, now, here you seem to need something…perhaps lithium.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Oh, and I wouldn’t worry about the DoD budget, it has been larded up enough to ensure passage, I mean Murtha, Pelosi and Hoyer got theirs! http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/murtha-nabs-150m-pork-2007-08-03.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Unless you’re making a buck from the fiasco, of course.
BUAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This from jihad boy, who pines for the days of Saddam Hussein and his cronies, and their piles of cash, fast cars, and expensive palaces.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Good luck in your pending deployment, Major John. And remember: Be sure to shoot first!
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 am
Oh, Alphie dear -
You’re intimate with the Mancrush Syndrome?
And here I thought you were such a stud, what with the macho remarks in situ!
Thanks for letting us know!
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
They’ll be the Iraqi civilians fleeing the charnal house your kind turned Iraq into.
Hm, let’s see. We invaded in 2003. It is now 2007. Where is this “veritable human tide” of Iraqis leaving the country? I know the Sunnis and Shiites have been separating themselves (although kind of in slow motion), but weren’t there supposed to be a million or two refugees fleeing over the borders? Or should we just conclude that the “refugee crisis” in Iraq is just another lefty wet dream?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
As we see above, alpha the blogroach’s main tactic is slander. A despicable insect.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
50,000 Iraqis a month fleeing their country:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6916791.stm
You guys must be soooo proud.
You’ve managed to make a country worse than the Soviet Union.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Idiot.
The claim of 2 million refugees has been made since 2003. And that supposes that Syria’s ‘estimates’ are accurate in the first place (the UN uses figures supplied to them by Syria, not by their own people),. Since the number hasn’t shifted in over 3 years, it has been suspect for quite some time.
What are they doing with the 50000 new ones each month, eating them?
Moron.
They took the same two million number they’ve used for years and averaged it over 40 months to come up with a claim that 50000 are fleeing each month when in actual fact the numbers have not increased since 2004.
Utter fool.
The only reliable figures are from Jordan and they admittedly include expatriates living there before 2003 in the number since they are reporting Iraqis in Jordan, not refugees, notwithstanding the misdirection otherwise in the article.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:19 am
“They’ll be the Iraqi civilians fleeing the charnal house your kind turned Iraq into.”
Boo hoo. The Iraqis should have thought about that befoe they:
1.) Helped terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas kill innocent people (including some Americans)
2.) Launched an unprovoked attack against Kuwait, and then failed to abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement they made with the United States.
Payback is a bitch.
They brought their troubles on themselves.