November 17, 2005, Gentlemen-- to the Swift-boats!
Thus would appear to be the cry of Republicans to save the honor of... the Republic... against a pansy-assed pussy shit bastard, decorated combat hero and career Marine and now Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania John Murtha, who, outrageously, called the Iraq war a failure and urged that all U.S. troops be brought home within six months. Just what is this guy thinking? Does he have no idea of the effect that this will have on White House staffers and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders? Fortunately, it looks the Swift-boaters are already mobilized, as Scott McLellan has already called Murtha, who as SecDef, Dick Cheney regarded as a key warmongering ally, "Nancy Pelosi's new Michael Moore". So take that, beeyutch.
Meanwhile... Vice President Dick Dastardly continues his daily tirades. It is just not good news when the President crosses the international date-line, and can only make miscues that are not for the appropriate news cycle, leaving America to actually have to see who its actual leader is. Not good; it might well explain why, as bad as the President's numbers have been, Dick's overnights are starting to approach those of General Zod.
Not to worry, Dick: the President will soon be back in town, and Bob Woodward seems committed to helping you keep your dirty little secrets... Et tu, Bob? It's all about access to the tough guys' table, isn't it? Tough guys like Vice-President Dick "5 Deferments" Dastardly...
What do I think of an independent press and the people's right to know? I think
they would be excellent ideas...
Comments
Re: swiftboating.
Look for attacks on Murtha to begin Real Soon Now (oh, wait, I'm too late. They've already started shelling.) It seems to me that Murtha is probably less swiftboatable than Kerry was.
The thing that bugged me about the swiftboating of Kerry is that the only reason we could even talk about it was that KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM.
Kerry went, Bush didn't.
Anyway, I suspect that they'll have a tougher time beating on Murtha. Men who retire as colonels tend to know what the fuck they're doing.
Posted by Dean at November 18, 2005 3:18 PM
Every discussion I've seen or read of Murka so far, including the statement from the White House, has began by noting how respected he is on defense issues by both parties. So unless you define "swiftboating" or "character attacks" as anything less than wholly agreeing with the man, I don't see that you have a point.
I don't question Murtha's motives, but I do question his judgment. That's allowed, isn't it? He's been calling the war "unwinnable" since the first year, so it's not like he's saying anything new now. Just last year he called for the reinstatement of the draft, which the entire military establishment agrees would have a terrible affect on our armed forces. He was one of only two to vote for the bill in the House. He's also a little confused on when terrorism began happening. "I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas."
I can respect the man's service and disagree with him at the same time. Spare me the strawman.
Posted by Lawrence at November 18, 2005 4:06 PM
Well, that's just it; Lawrence seems to be alone among Murtha's critics in chosing to question what it is Murtha is saying, rather than going right for Murtha's throat (see "McLellan, Scott" and "Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Sweetheart Dealville, Calif.)" among others).
Frankly, I wouldn't characterize a decision to set a time-table for withdrawal and turnover of security functions to the new constitutional Iraqi government "surrender," as some do. I think that kind of language is little better than any other kind of shrillness. The issue of whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns in Iraq is a fair question: our continued presence may well not be stabilizing the place. It certainly sets up a moral hazard for the new Iraqi government, which knows it doesn't have to work too hard on its own security, knowing we're carrying the load for it. Some kind of drawdown timetable-- less radical than "everyone out in six months", may well be an appropriate policy... In fact, I have little doubt that there will be a significant drawdown in less than a year's time anyway, in part for crass political reasons, in part for logistical necessity... I don't believe our military can sustain this intense a deployment at its current levels (lowest American force total since the 1930's) indefinitely, and still get anyone to enlist for future service.
But that said... a national debate, finally, without name-calling "traitors!" "surrendenderers!", etc. is long, long overdue. Bring it on, as they say. I certainly acknowledge that even I find the particular suggestion-- all out withdrawal within 6 months-- to be... unreasonable. But to say, for example, that current troop levels might be brought down, say, 20 or 30% in a year, and more Iraqi units brought in to replace them, in whatever readiness state they are in... why can't we debate that?
In Washington, these days, you get attention by taking an extreme position, and if this is the only way to get the ball rolling, then good for Rep. Murtha.
What's interesting is that there's an old news aspect to this: Murtha has been saying this sort of thing for some time, only now that there seems to be a shift in media attention, he's getting coverage for it. But there you go. There seems to be a current "pile-on" the Administration now, which, itself, seems to be a shift from how things were done earlier. I wouldn't worry too much: the President's people are really good at working the media; I'm sure they'll get their own message out.
And unfortunately, my guess is that message will be more shrill character assassination than actual substantive challenge. Which is too bad for everyone, because as I said, an open national debate is overdue.
Posted by the talking dog at November 18, 2005 4:53 PM
I don't disagree about having an honest debate about Iraq, TD. I do think setting a hard timetable for withdrawal would send the wrong message, but let's hear the argument for how it would win the war. That's what all of us here want, I'm sure.
I think it's neither inaccurate or shrill to characterize an immediate withdrawal of troops, before they've acheived the objective, as surrender. It would be, in effect, and if it were to happen, our end in Iraq wouldn't be so unlike our end in Vietnam. Then, there would finally be an apt comparison between the two wars.
By the way, what did Scott McLellan and Rep. Hunter say about Murtha that was vicious? Maybe they have went for his throat and I'm just not aware of it.
Posted by Lawrence at November 18, 2005 5:33 PM
See yesterday's and tonight's developments, Lawrence:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007057.php
http://tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3690
(Andrew Sullivan says today that the GOP's charges against Murtha yesterday and today leave him "sick to my stomach". He provides details.)
By the way, Sullivan also points out that tonight's House vote on "immediate withdrawal" is deliberate sucker-bait by the GOP, since Murtha isn't recommending withdrawal for 6 months (and then not anything like complete withdrawal from the area): http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_11_13_dish_archive.html#113235685046106543 .
As for an argument that withdrawal from Iraq would "win the war", the answer is obvious: the war we actually have to win is the bigger one against Megaterrorism -- and the most important fight in that war, by far, is to prevent nuclear proliferation (which, you'll recall, was officially what the Iraq War was supposed to be about). And the fact that our military is now stuck in Iraq -- thanks to Bush's crazy confidence that he could win the war quickly and easily, and his consequent willingness to rig up fake evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program -- means that we are now utterly helpless to militarily prevent Iran from completing its own very real and very dangerous Bomb program, or to respond in any way to any crisis resulting from the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it.
Posted by Bruce Moomaw at November 18, 2005 9:46 PM
Andrew Sullivan says today...
Let me know when you have an original thought on the subject.
As for an argument that withdrawal from Iraq would "win the war", the answer is obvious: the war we actually have to win is the bigger one against Megaterrorism
Of which Iraq is a part. You can disagree with that, and many do, but there's a good argument to be made that changing the diseased political landscape of the Middle East is an important step in addressing the "root causes" of terrorism.
and the most important fight in that war, by far, is to prevent nuclear proliferation (which, you'll recall, was officially what the Iraq War was supposed to be about).
Yeah, I remember John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Clinton et al, as late as 2002, talking about Saddam's "unmistakable" nuclear ambitions. (Want some direct quotes?)
...his consequent willingness to rig up fake evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.
Got any evidence of that? No, you don't. Did Bush plant the centrifuge components that were found buried in the backyard of his chief scientist? Did he send an Iraqi delegation to Niger to make inquiries with the prime minister, which, in the opinion of Joe Wilson and the PM, was to discuss uranium? Did he fake Saddam's uncovered plan to buy long-range missiles from North Korea? Or fake the Duelfer report which disclosed large latent WMD facilities just waiting to resume activity?
...we are now utterly helpless to militarily prevent Iran from completing its own very real and very dangerous Bomb program,
Actually, if we need to deal with the Iran crisis militarily, what better place to launch operations than Iraq?
As I agreed with TD, we can debate the merits of any of these ideas or actions, but stop with the dishonest revisionism.
Posted by Lawrence at November 19, 2005 3:06 PM
*sigh* Read the evidence, Lawrence. The centrifuge components, the Duelfer report, and the Niger affair have all been looked into at great length, and have been discussed at great length by the sources I mentioned. For what the Duelfer Report really says -- as opposed to Bush's frantic and blatant public lies about what it said -- see http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041025&s=editorial102504 . (By the way, if you're going to accuse me of "not having an original thought on the subject", might it not be wise for you yourself to do more than regurgitate official GOP talking points?) The centrifuge components -- apart from being isolated -- are so old that they're known to be holdovers from his pre-Kuwait War nuclear program. Not only Wilson, but the State Department and the US Embassy in Niger regarded the Yellowcake story as nonsense, and the CIA was neutral on the subject.
And -- to repeat -- what the Bush White House mostly did was to cherry-pick the intelligence evidence, embrace the few crumbs which suggested a nuclear program by Saddam (the blatantly fake Yellowcake Memos being an example), and reject the huge amount of more credible evidence which suggested otherwise. (For still another recent note on this subject, see http://slate.com/id/2130605/ .) As for our involvement in Iraq making it impractical to launch needed military actions elsewhere -- not only against Iran, but in response to any crises produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have the Bomb -- I'm citing comments by military officials themselves, as quoted in the Post and a number of other newspapers. Certainly there's nobody in the Bush Administration raising it as a possibility, even sotto voce.
It's very likely that we would have had to deal with Saddam's regime at some point in the not-too-distant future -- our past actions had destroyed his nuclear program, and limited (and in fact, as we now know, destroyed) his CBW program, but obviously he would have very much liked to resume it IF we laid off the military pressure and the sanctions (which is what all those Democrats you're quoting were referring to). But for the time being, he was no threat. He did NOT have the Bomb, and he was nowhere near acquiring it. (Nuclear weapons are infinitely more dangerous than CBWs, but attempts to produce them are also virtually impossible to hide from aerial inspections, let alone ground inspectors.) He was not #1 on our list of military priorities; he was #3 or #4, and we're now paying the price for the Bush Administration's stupid overconfidence that Iraq would be such easy pickings that making it our first military target would be worthwhile anyway.
As for "changing the diseased political landscape of the Middle East": that is the direct consequence of the fact that Islam itself is still an unreformed and authoritarian religion. What are we going to do: kick our way into every mosque in the Moslem world and demand that they let us deliver the sermons? (For more on this subject, read that noted pinko George Will.) They're not going to drop their destructive belief in the current malignant form of Islam because WE tell them to; they're going to do so only when they find out the hard way, through their own experience, that Moslem theocracy doesn't work one bit better than secular tyranny, and that self-declared Holy Men are usually not all that Holy. This process took bloody centuries for Christian Europe, and it's likely to take at least decades for Islam. During that time, our military task is not to try to cram liberalized culture -- which they've been trained to hate from childhood on religious grounds -- down their throats. It's to try to keep really nasty weapons out of the hands of Moslem tyrannies during the long period before they crumble from within (which they have yet to do even in Iran, despite the fact that the Iranian people have already had the kind of painful lesson I'm talking about, and in consequence are themselve more sympathetic to Western liberalism than the rest of the region).
Posted by Bruce Moomaw at November 19, 2005 4:00 PM
As I explained in the thread below, Moomaw, I'm done with you. It's almost a shame, though, because at the end of this last comment you actually breach a subject that would be fun to debate. Unfortunately you've given me no reason to believe that you can participate in an honest or meaningful way.
I don't care how old the centrifuge components were, they were illegal for Saddam to have and he knew it. That's why they were buried.
Not only Wilson, but the State Department and the US Embassy in Niger regarded the Yellowcake story as nonsense, and the CIA was neutral on the subject.
This is a fine example of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about. The CIA had reports that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger. They sent Wilson there to look into it and he found out that an Iraqi delegation had made overtures to the Prime Minister for what was believed to pertain to uranium. As Wilson said of it, "I've spent enough time there not to be so naive as to believe that the Iraqis were interested in Niger for its millet, sorghum production." Since yellowcake uranium accounts for more than three-quarters of all Niger exports, the CIA said Wilson's report added to the evidence that the claims were true. The analysts interviewed by the Sentate Intelligence Committee said it bolstered their original calim. And this is entirely separate from and unrelated to the documents that France forged to show a purported sale. Don't take my word for it, read the frickin' Report on Prewar Intelligence.
Posted by Lawrence at November 19, 2005 6:25 PM