Nowhere Man
I just watched Bush's Big Speech on Iraq from the perfect vantage point: a motel room on the outskirts of Greeley, Colorado. I could look out my 3rd story window and see nothing but vast, sprawling and near empty snow-covered fields. Then I could shift my gaze toward the President on TV and see pretty much the same thing.
I think gal pal Arianna pretty much got it right before the Prez even spoke. The most remarkable characteristic of his grand vision was its utter banality. The one exception to that observation was Bush's rather ominous saber-rattling toward Iran and Syria. Doesn't sound like he's dispatching beefed-up naval combat groups off the Iranian coast in order to open up regional diplomatic talks.
I'm absolutely certain that Bush's deployment of 20,000 more troops and his spending of another $6-7 billion isn't going to do anything to either shift the war nor move American public opinion any further in his own direction. And I'm nearly as much convinced that Bush did himself further damage tonight.
His weak-tea admission that the responsibility for "mistakes" rests with him can only confirm what a vast majority of Americans have known for sometime. Instead of absolving the President for his frankness, they will receive the President's words as permission to further condemn him.
Unfortunately, I also just watched the official Democratic response delivered by Senator Dick Durbin. It was tinged with just a bit too much of xenophobia for my taste. Durbin seemed to blame the whole catastrophe on the lot of ungrateful Iraqis. His finger wagging at them looked to play on the same sort of nationalist arrogance that Bush used to promote the war in the first place. How much more honest if Durbin had concentrated his fire on those ultimately responsible for this catastrophe: Bush and his buddies.
Next chapter: will there be a congressional vote on all this, binding or otherwise? How many Republicans will vote against the President? How many Democrats will vote the other way?
Now, excuse me, while I go back to peering out my window at the frozen, darkened landscape.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Bush has told us that his friend Sen. Lieberman will be part of a “bipartisan” group that will advise him. Maybe one or two other Dems will join but when Sam Brownbeck jumps ship it is clear to me that it is over. There should be no talk of “non-binding” resolutions at this time. It is time to do what Ted Kennedy and Max Baucas are talking about. No additional $6.8 billion to fund this escalation and a plan to get troops out as fast as possible.
I don’t care who Durbin blames. its the President, stupid!
January 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Any of you blogkids going to some of the moveon.org-supported (and those “others”, yes Marc) “protests” tomorrow?
I might go, but I think most US Empire citizens will prefer to look at pump prices an tacitly support more rape (meatpacking somehow comes to mind) of Iraqi resources.
pendejos?
January 10th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Great analysis by Dighby on this and the anti-democratic bias of Bush and his fanatics. But,let’s face it, it is time for spine in Congress and it appears that a significant fravtion of Republicans have had it as well. I’m as nostalgic as the next boomer but I really can do without reliving Vietnam and a stubborn President:
“Waist deep in the Big Muddy
and the Damn Fool sez to keep
on!”
January 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Only a billion dollars for Iraqi jobs? There are probably 5 million unemployed in Iraq. Let’s say all of that billion dollars went to give some Iraqis a median income for Iraq — which it won’t: there’s expensive administrative overhead, and overwhelming graft and corruption
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2485.cfm
in what passes for a government in Iraq. That’s only 200,000 jobs – maybe 5% of the problem. They’ll have to spend this WPA money *very* strategically to even make a dent.
“Durbin seemed to blame the whole catastrophe on the lot of ungrateful Iraqis. His finger wagging at them looked to play on the same sort of nationalist arrogance that Bush used to promote the war in the first place.”
Notch up another one for my pet theory, the Kurdistan Petrostate Quasi-Exit Strategy. What that requires for political viability in America (among other elements, all of which seem to be progressing briskly, thank you for asking) is a rough bipartisan consensus that we’re throwing good money after bad, and too many U.S. lives, at mere *ingrates* in most of Iraq, with Kurdistan being the shining exception. Not to mention that Kurdistan has a lot more oil than Anbar province, especially if they can pull off a de facto annexation of Kirkuk. As it appears they will, Turkish protests notwithstanding:
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-20919.html
—-
Iraqi Turkmen leader Sadettin Ergec warned yesterday that Kirkuk is ready to explode before a referendum on the future status of the city, scheduled for late this year. Ergec, in his remarks published on the CNN Turk news portal, claimed that Iraqi Kurdish groups have changed the demographic structure of city by bringing thousands of Kurdish people to city. He also argued that Kurdish groups brought in serious amounts of arms and weaponry to their peshmerga.
“600,000 Kurdish people have settled in the Kirkuk region since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and recently 227,000 of them registered as voters,” Ergec said. He stressed that under these conditions it is not possible to reach a fair result through a referendum.
—-
January 10th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Yep.
It’s the oil, stupid.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
http://tinyurl.com/yf9fdv
January 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,002 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
BLUM, Aron C., 22, Sgt., Marines; Tucson; Marine Aircraft Group 11, Third Marine Aircraft Wing, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
CALDWELL, Eric T., 22, Specialist, Army; Salisbury, Md.; First Cavalry Division.
MITCHELL, Raymond N. III, 21, Specialist, Army; West Memphis, Ark.; 10th Mountain Division.
WOSIKA, James M. Jr., 24, Sgt., Army; St. Paul; Second Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Awaiting moderation, 4 names of the dead today.
This is a graph from Michael Gordon’s “military analysis” of the Bush escalation plan in today’s NYT. To me it shows how little the whole thing has been thought out. Where are these troops going to sleep? In their humvees? Or will they be taking over schools like they did right after the 2003 invasion?
“In carrying out the old operation, Americans conducted patrols from large American bases in and around the city. This time, according to Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American command in Iraq, some American troops will remain in contested areas “24/7†to deter death squads and insurgents from infiltrating the sectors once the neighborhoods have been cleared.”
January 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Jacob Weisberg on the fecklessness of the Democrats. Let’s hope that they do find their backbones in the coming days. A time for action, not words.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157390/
January 11th, 2007 at 1:57 am
“It’s the oil, stupid.”
Well, I call it an Exit Strategy, not *the* strategy, because that’s probably what it is: a last, and plausible acceptable, resort.
(And I say “quasi-” because the U.S. will probably never formally recognize Kurdish sovereignty, any more than it formally recognizes Taiwanese sovereignty while still selling fighter planes to Taiwan. It might even annoint Mosul as the pro-tem seat of “the legitimate government of Iraq in not-really-exile”, to avoid recognizing Kirkuk as the Kurdish capital city, among other semantic dodges. And the Kurdish leadership will accept the necessity of these dodges, because they know from experience, under Saddam and under us, that if what they have looks like sovereignty, walks like sovereignty and quacks like sovereignty, they ain’t no Peking Duck.)
The most desirable outcome is still that shimmering mirage of a democratic, peaceful, terror-free, prosperous, unified Iraq. That’s true if you wish the best for these wretched Iraqis. However, it’s also still true even if all you cared about from day one was the oil, because each of those desiderata, if they can be had for the right price, makes getting the oil easier and more profitable. At this point, I admit, it’s just a question of what few compromises of that goal are still possible, and what shade of lipstick to use on any resulting pig. (Did I say “pig”? I meant “rabid, infuriated wart-hog”.)
January 11th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Former BushCo Speechwriter Michael Gerson on The Good News…
“For the first time since the fall of Baghdad, the president has set out a realistic plan to secure the citizens of that city in order to allow political and economic progress to move forward.”
Oh…
Well, by all means let’s keep following the brilliant strategies of a “Commander in Chief” who, after tens of thousands of people have been dying for 3 1/2 years, “for the first time” devises a “realistic plan” to deal with it.
And this is the best that sycophants for the Little Shit can come up with.
The scariest thing about this escalation is that “a guy named Fred”, the AEI/Weekly Standard hack who has been pushing it (since 1997 when he wrote “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkableâ€) has assured us that unless it is a signficantly larger commitment than the “surge” Bush is actually delivering, it is doomed to fail. McCain has said exactly the same thing (except when he’s saying something else – so much for “straight talk”.)
I’ve been opposed to the use of the term “surge”, in favor of the more explicit “escalation”. Now I’m leaning strongly against the term “escalation” in favor of “human sacrifice”. That’s what this is – a cynical human sacrifice as a last ditch effort to avert coming to terms with a disastrous – monstrous, really -”national security” failure.
NOBODY – not even the very people who’ve been promoting a “surge” – thinks that what Bush is actually proposing can work. I don’t think even Bush thinks that it will succeed, but he’s such a coward that he sees dragging out an ultimately futile escalastion as a means to keep this thing going so the endgame doesn’t happen on his watch.
http://tinyurl.com/yjluzr
January 11th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Oops…did I say 3 1/2 years ? Make that “nearly 4″.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:04 am
“Now I’m leaning strongly against the term “escalation†in favor of “human sacrificeâ€. That’s what this is – a cynical human sacrifice as a last ditch effort to avert coming to terms with a disastrous – monstrous, really -â€national security†failure.”
reg, thanks for those very eloquent words, which really express the tragic nature of what is happening. Although I spend about two months each year in the United States, I often end up sitting here in Paris feeling helpless to effect events in the belly of the beast, even though the entire world feels the effects of these kinds of outrageous decisions. I do what I can to raise my voice, contribute to those candidates and causes that counter this madness, and just basically try to stay sane. Although I rail against the Democrats and even the antiwar movement for its relative passivity, the very limited reaction in countries like France and elsewhere in Europe is also reprehensible. The French were of course right about the Iraq invasion, as Chirac gloated about the other day, but they have been happy to take satisfaction in American stupidity and do nothing–other than one, count them, ONE big march against the invasion back in 2003–but sit back and feel superior. But America and Americans, at least a good number of Americans, created this awful situation and the responsibility now rests with those of us who have seen through the madness to stop it. My next trip over will be in April, and I pledge to attend every march and rally I can wherever I am. Maybe by then the Democrats will have found their spines and the antiwar movement its mettle.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:57 am
yankee go home!
January 11th, 2007 at 8:19 am
If only Bush followed the Iraqi plan of the Democrats. What was it again…this week…or ever?
January 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am
If we were 20,000 troops away from victory why didn’t we have them three years ago?
I don’t know about the Democrats, but the Iraq plan for sensible people was to continue with a system of sanctions and vigilance which was stable if not desirable rather than making things many times worse with a wooly-headed harebrained pipe dream run by incompetents.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:25 am
The Baltimore SUN reported this weekend that the 21,500 troops would come, in part, from Afghanistan, where they were engaged in stiff fighting with the Taliban and would be going to Baghdad without enough body armor or armored Humvees. So where will they sleep? On the ground maybe. But that’s all right his “Good Friend” Joe Lieberman is advising him!
January 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Here’s a link on that withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan…
http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3203
January 11th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Now here is some good news. Yesterday, AP reports, a “multinational” force invaed the Iranian Consulate in the Provincial Iraqi city of Irbil and “Detained” the six Iranian diplomats. That is right kiddies we just violated the first principle of International law – Foeign Embassies and consulates are sovereign territories of that nation and violation therof is an act of war. Didn’t we get all hot and bothered (and rightfully so, I might add) when the Iranians seized our Foreign Service Officers in Nov. of 1979? Well now the Decider-in-Chief has decided that the Vienna Convention is for sissies!
I can’t wait till this news reaches Caracas! Let us give Hugo some ideas why don’t we?
Wait! We just declared WAR on Iran and they are permitted, under the UN charter to retaliate. Folks get your bicycles in good shape.
(Oh well, “Holy Joe” praised the speech for its decisiveness. So I guess its a bipartisan success!)
January 11th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“If only Bush followed the Iraqi plan of the Democrats. What was it again…this week…or ever?”
Funny you should ask…several years ago, when there was still some small, long-shot chance of containing this thing, the Iraq plan of many leading Democrats – even some who opposed the crackpot idea of invading in the first place – was sending in as many more troops as possible and forcing a political resolution among the contending Iraqi groups under threat of a withdrawal. Many also thought Bremer’s imperial occupation strategy was crazy. Few “trusted the men in charge who are smarter than us” as you’ve been counseling for as long as I can remember whenever criticisms of Bush have been raised. Now after BushCo has screwed everything up worse than anyone could have possibly imagined in the course of fighting a war that had no sufficient rationale in the first place, this latest “surge” is obviously too little, too late. The Men You Love have created a terrible disaster for which there is no good solution. If you’ve got something substantive to add, beside moronic taunts of people who haven’t been as embarrassingly wrong as you have consistently been, why don’t you offer it up. If not, don’t let the door hit your sorry ass on the way out.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Michael Turner: You’re beginning to make a believer of me towards the quasi-exit-Kurdish-petro-state….
Meanwhile, on the other hand, I do wonder, how Syria’s progress towards democracy is coming along? And Syria’s not even burdened with sanctions or US invasion…sensible people might know, hey Mr. Fiore?
My actual, humble, thoughts on this 20k troop movement is that it is a pre-cursor to the eventual withdrawl of most of the US troops by the end of ’08. Except for craziness by either the US or Iran…
And WTF are US troops doing attacking the Iran consulate?
January 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Syria is an authoritarian state and how long it remains so would depend on the Syrians, though I would expect it to be indefinitely. Sensible people would attempt to bring about positive change through non-military means.
Bush is attacking Iranian embassies because Alex Gonzales told him he could.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Here is something to think about. Last night Chimpy call his Mesopotamian misadventure “The Decisive Struggle” of our timr.”
Decisive?
Then why not call for a mobilization of the nation?
A draft?
Raise taxes to pay for it?
A serious energy program? Rationing?
Who is he kidding?
January 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Why is it totally the fault of “Bush and his buddies”? The Democratic Party STILL fully supports, in all meaningful and effective ways, the war in Iraq and has explicitly said that it will not do anything to stop it. Why should they? The history of the Democratic Party is, if anything, even more devoted to messianic American Exceptionalism, just war, and aggression.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“Syria is an authoritarian state and how long it remains so would depend on the Syrians, though I would expect it to be indefinitely. Sensible people would attempt to bring about positive change through non-military means.”
Well, thanks, for the response, RF. “…I would EXPECT it to be indefinitely.” Which I take to mean you have no expectations at all. Which is the problem right there, isn’t it? No expectations.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Then why not call for a mobilization of the nation?
A draft?
Raise taxes to pay for it?
A serious energy program? Rationing?”
The right questions, exactly, rlc.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
reg, there were numerous Iraqi plans of “many leading Democrats.” In fact, some were for the war before they voted against it. They have been all over the board taking no position and every position. Bush didn’t do a great job with this conflict (what war goes as planned?), but at least he did something rather than ignoring the problem and second guessing, as the Democrats have done.
Of course, you can never be wrong if you don’t commit to an action and apply information today that wasn’t available yesterday when decisions had to be made. I’m sorry that your criticism of Bush has to be balanced with the inaction and subversion of the Democrats and the Left.
Also, unless Marc has made you the gate keeper here, I’ll say what I want, despite your inability to hold back your anger against conservatives. Maybe you were one of those who blew up and attacked the Yale singers when they sang the National Athem in SF the other day. Get your own blog or be quiet when others want to participate.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I must have missed the “attack” on the Yale singers. Was it an IED? Maybe KSFO or Disney could counterattack
January 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I’m not a gatekeeper. It’s your perfect right to continue in this mission of being the dumbest, most obnoxiou, one-note asshole in the room. Enjoy…
(The guys who attacked the Yale singers in SF, incidentally, did so after calling them “faggots”, presumably because they a group of fastidiously dressed young men singing acappella. The guy who’s taken case of the Yale singers to make sure the bigoted bullies who attacked them are duly prosecuted is one of the most left-wing pols in SF. Try again with something you know a little about. Or maybe shut the fuck up so as not to embarrass yourself with your childish bullshit. I’m trying to help you out here.)
January 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
That should have been “obnoxious” and “they were a”
January 11th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The group initially got upset with the singing of the National Anthem. Name calling came later. Please, I don’t want or need your help. At least I haven’t been banned from commenting because of crude and inappropriate comments, as you have been.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“I must have missed the “attack†on the Yale singers.”
It was drunk punks – apparently some rich ones, incidentally – who crashed a party to which the Yale male accapella group had been invited to sing.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Maybe they objected to a school that would take Bush.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Woody, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes, the “Bakers Dozen” Yalies sang the Stars Spangled Banner, and a bunch of party crashers from Sacred Heart, the most prestigious Catholic school in SF started calling them “fags” and “homos”. I don’t know if your source on this is Melanie Morgan or Neal Boortz, but check out Matier & Ross at SFGate.com for a detailed account.
And nothing could be more crude or inappropriate than your charges of subversion, etc. You’re a sleazebag. All you ever do is repeat the same tired bullshit on the false premise that your ignorant drooling constitutes patriotism. If ever any crazy notion was “subversive” of American ideals, it’s that fools like you are the best and wisest that this country has to offer. God forbid. And LOL.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Sorry, reg. You’re eaten up with left-wing dogma from being isolated with radicals. I have to go. Sean Hannity is on and I don’t want to miss any of it.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Maybe you can nominate Reg for this week’s “Enemy of the State”.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Or is that “Enema?” With Hannity you’re never sure.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Check this out for some perspective on the possible scope of escalation and be sure to scroll down to Chuck Hagel’s remarks this morning to “Madame” Rice:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php
January 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I’m an Enemy of the State of Insanity – which obviously afflicts Sean Hannity and his faithful viewers like Woody.
These folks constitute the Hate America Right – a motley crew indeed who reside on the margins of credible discourse but, unfortunately, have managed to grab a lot of attention with their incessant noise, over-amplified ignorance, hysterical rants and narcissistic whining.
For an absurdly humorous example of the latter, check this out:
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/210909.php
January 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I checked the link and agree with the post–naturally. Smart guy, that writer. There is nothing that can be discussed without someone from the left finding a tie-in with Iraq. Even look at the stupid remark by your brilliant Hollywood scholar Suzanne Somers, who at least is smarter than Babs.
It’s amazing that people whose lives pretend, and I use that word intentionally, to revolve around deaths of our military men who are fighting for freedom are the same people who have no problem with 20 million innocent babies killed by abortionists.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
What I found particularly interesting was the notion that any comment in Cooper’s threads, which is what the genius blogger was quoting extensively, that happens to follow one of his own observations must be a direct response to Him or it’s not relevant. Supreme Narcissism mixed with an enormous dose of Clueless.
God, this Woody-Go-Round has been a waste of time.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Ok I AM the gatekeeper and I’m snapping it shut on this catfight. I think both ur points have been amply made and assimilated by the readers.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Brian writes, “Why is it totally the fault of “Bush and his buddiesâ€? The Democratic Party STILL fully supports, in all meaningful and effective ways, the war in Iraq and has explicitly said that it will not do anything to stop it. ”
I HATE this kind of argument. Just because the Democrats aren’t stopping the war, or trying hard enough, does not mean they support it. Absence of of dissent does not equal support. Not when you’re talking about Saddam or Darfur or anything. Are there moral pitfalls of inaction? Absolutely. But it just isn’t the same as actively supporting a crappy policy.
Brian, if you want to accuse the Democrats of being wishy washy or inneffectual or apologists for the empire, go right ahead. But don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that they support the war. By and large, they don’t. It’s a matter of public record.
p.s. has anyone ever met Woody? I just don’t believe he’s real. On the other hand, it’s too clumsy for the CIA. Perhaps Homeland Security? It is a Bush Admin program.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Sorry, Marc. I was through.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
whoops. missed Marc’s warning.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
C’mon Dad (I mean Marc) it was just getting good.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Mr. Turner:
In regard to you Kurdish petrostate exit strategy. It would be a landlocked state. How would they get the oil out?
January 11th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Mavis Beacon:
“Absence of dissent does not equal support”. It signifies acquiesence which is what the Dems have been doing all along.
Please see Edward Herman’s excellent analysis (Z Mag.org) of why the Dems have niether the inclination nor the ability to mount any meaningful opposition to the war (also some insightful articles by Mr. Cooper in the archives of that website!).
January 11th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Anyone noticed the number of REPUBLICAN Senators who have jumped ship in the last 48 hours? There is a particularly tight correlation between a 2008 reelection contest and a change of mind on Iraq. I saw a list on MYDD and just now Sens Sununnu, Coleman, Hagel, Brownback, Voinevich, Collins, and Collins are all anti-surge. I think the number is ten. And some of the Dems who were supporting the war have switched – Nelson of FL and Baucas of MT.
Of course Joe Lieberman is now the WH’s favorite Democrat (er “Independent Democrat” that is) but one reporter from ROLL CALL told MSNBC that he was “Irrelevent.” I bring this up because Mitch McConnel is threatening a filibuster which one supposes “Holy Joe” would support but there are now enough GOP Senators onboard to overide. But there are two points here:
1. Dems can prevail by refusing to fund the Supplemental that Bush is asking for to finance his adventure. Can’t filibuster that.
2. Paul Begala had a good idea – I know it happens now and then. Instead of a non-binding “sense of the Senate” Resolution condemning the war put up the President’s speech last night for an up or down vote. See who wants to escalate and who doesn’t and go from there. Put the GOP legislators – and the Dems – on record.
I sense an increased spineiness in the Senate and House to challenge this President. More are urging funds cutoffs for the surge if not for the whole show. And that was sure some reception Condi got today at Foreign Relations!
BTW Anyone seen Hillary around? She’s the frontrunner?
January 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
But Urizen didn’t opur genial host decide that Herman was a Ward Churchil-like hack?
January 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
RLC:
I am quite certain that our genial host-gatekeeper will be able to judge the merits of Mr. Herman’s analysis, in the spirit of anti-war unity, unencumbered by any personal or ideological differences which should surely take a backseat to the human tragedy caused by this war.
Like Mavis, you need to stop confusing lack of support from acquiesence among the Dems. Those are just tactical differences that you’re obsessing over – both party’s overriding goal remains: O_peration I_raqi L_iberation.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The more one watches coverage of the response to escalation; the more our host’s point about the Democratic response seems appropriate. One talking head put it baldly: this may be a the set up for a blame and run policy, the Iraqis being too hopeless to help (but we ment well).
I think, however, this is sadly tied to the utter inability to attach the slightest responsability to our hugely compromised War machine. Consider what Bush has been able to do: Tell us he will listen to his commanders in the field, and when they don’t tell him what he wants to here, he fires them and brings in some who will! Yet we are told, with a telling emphisis, what stand up guys they are.
And the liberal Dems dare not say a word; for they know if they do they’ll be run through the meat grinder by the “liberal media.” This country is getting to be like prewar Japan; so cowed is the general public by the Military.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
rlc: “That is right kiddies we just violated the first principle of International law – Foeign Embassies and consulates are sovereign territories of that nation and violation therof is an act of war.”
Actually, consulates are not necessarily sovereign territory. I believe there are exceptions, but it’s unlikely that Iran’s Irbil consulate would be one of them.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
A couple of words about Z-net and Ed Herman referring to some comments above from Lo Cicero and from Urizen (aka Ed Watters).
You might indeed find some of my work archived on Z-net but anything you o find there has been pilfered. I have never written a word for them, so what u are seeing are uncompensated, lifted reprints. I think it’s more accurately called intellectual property theft.
As to fifth-rate scholar Ed Herman. I hold no personal grudge against him. I just rate his credibility as zero. He willfully misrepresented my views and those of others I know with absolutely no attempt to check with us or further verify what we said or didnt say. He deliberately slandered Saul Landua, a veteran radical, merely because Saul didnt share Herman’s lunatical views of Pacifica Radio. No matter that Landau actually had a show on said radio and Herman for his part lived outside of any Pacifica signal area. Herman’s a dottering, sloppy ideologue with no respect for facts. For one example, he has several times identified me as a supporter of the war in Kosovo when in fact I organized and broadcast one of the largest anti-Kosovo teach-ins in the country. It’s nothing personal.Just lack of respect for his shoddy work.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“In regard to you Kurdish petrostate exit strategy. It would be a landlocked state. How would they get the oil out?”
The usual way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkuk-Ceyhan_Oil_Pipeline
Turkey is adamantly opposed to Kurdish sovereignty, de facto or de jure, and absolutely will not put up with it — until major politicos and media figures have been bribed enough to shut up about it. Would it cost a lot to bribe them enough, with $2 million per day of Kurdish crude oil crossing Turkish territory? I think not. Is Turkey corrupt enough? Easily — it’s just a notch above Russia by typical measures:
http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/bpi_2006
Do we have to do the bribing? No — we can leave all such potential embarrassments to oil-rich Iraqi Kurds, who will also offer to continue their support of Turkey’s efforts to curb the PKK. Kurdish/Turkish antipathies are far from absolute — Turkey even had Kurdish president not so long ago. There are still some scary political minefields to be crossed, the Turkmen population of Kirkuk not least among them. But Iraq’s Kurdish leadership has crossed much more dangerous minefields in the past, and has learned some lessons.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Urizen, just FYI, I totally agree that the Dems have acquiesed far too often in this matter. I think the majority of commenters here are less than thrilled with the Democratic opposition since the outset. The great splitting point is whether one gives up on them or not. I’d be thrilled to give up on the Democrats entirely; I just don’t see how you can.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
You wouldn’t know it from reading most news, but Bush appears to have gotten a two-point bounce from this New Way Forward: the AP/Ipsos poll, which often generates the most negative numbers on Bush, says that those polled on Jan 8-10 (when his speech was leaking all over the place) are 29% in favorss of his Iraq policy, from 27%, with those expressing disapproval dropping from 71% to 68%. I attribute this to our “send more troops” contingent (somewhere between 12% and 29%, depending on questions and interpretations) finding his “surge” numbers satisfactory or at least a good start. Perhaps quite a few of them still think it’s too small.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Mavis:
I don’t see how we cannot give up on them. They ‘give up’ on us routinely, about a half a nanosecond after the election results are tabulated.
Here’s the Dems chief function: to tell the Repubs when they’ve gone ‘too far’, as in, we can’t have a surge – let’s just keep the present troop and carnage levels.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
MT does the words “Margin of Error” mean anything to you?
Marc I really don’t think you and Sol Landau see eye to eye on anything or am I reading his COUNTERPUNCH articles on Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez incorrectly.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
rlc: “MT does the words “Margin of Error†mean anything to you?”
Yes. Do the words “Gaussian distribution”, “probability density”, or “standard deviation” mean anything to you?
OK, how about “confidence interval”? In particular, if you have a poll with a 3% margin of error from about 1800 respondents, with a confidence of interval of 95%, what’s the probability that the resulting figures are *more* than 3% off? Or less than 2%? Less than 1%?
Confused? Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
And particularly the section, “The use and abuse of the margin of error”. I suspect you need it, because your retort makes you sound like you suffer from a common misperception: that if a poll reports a margin of error of +/-3%, that means that any number within the range of +/-3% of the reported figure is equally probable.
So DID Bush get a 2-point bounce from his speech and the leaks beforehand? From the AP/Ipsos poll, there’s a smallish probability that it was zero (or even less), just as there’s a smallish chance that he got a *four*-point bounce or greater. If you wanted to bet on the proposition “Bush’s support numbers on Iraq just improved”, it would be a good bet. You wouldn’t bet the farm, but so what? You should almost never bet the farm anyway.
I assume (wrongly, I guess) that whenever you cite a poll, people take statistics into account, so that when I write something like “19% of Americans strongly support Bush’s ‘surge’”, they can translate “19%” as “probably very close to 19%”. If I should be more careful, then so should you: you should not only report the margin of error, but also the confidence interval if you can find it. And always use the words “probably” and “approximately” where they are statistically appropriate.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Let’s see the “Probability Density Function” is an improper Integral that, when summed from minus to plus infinity converges at one. The standard Deviation is the square root of the deviation which is the absolute difference of the mean subtracted from each individual case of data reported. And there are a variety of tests to get a confidence interval like Kruskal or Student’s t. The Guassian distribution is the well known bell shaped curve which, BTW, you can get from any number of functions but the one that sets up the curve used in probability and statistics is a mother that involves e and is a double integral.
I took calculus and stat too many years ago and I’m too rusty now to remember much more than the concept without a book by my side and I’m not near one. But a two point difference would be well within the margin of error of any poll I’m aware of.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
This is much better than the carbon dating brouhaha…
January 15th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Rote memorization of material learned long ago: A+
Demonstration of understanding of concepts: F
Possible salvation question, if answered correctly:
The same polling methodology was used to show that a figure changed by two points, with a 3% margin of error. Which of the following statements is the most likely:
(1) The real number is unchanged.
(2) The real number changed in the direction indicated by the difference.