Forums | MacLife

How wrong, on a fundamental level, can people in power be and still be not merely tolerated, but celebrated?  That to me is the most amazing part.

NAG wrote:

Yeah, I've known many intelligent people fall prey and use the "just don't bash our president" line. I mean, what? When did dissent become bad?

I think it says so somewhere in the Patriot Act.

"The greatest thing to come out of [invading Iraq] for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil." Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), February 2003

I never could figure out how the talking heads and other dolts came up with that idea.

Hmmm...let's see...let's go into one of the most productive oil regions on earth, blow up much of the infrastructure, and completely destabalize it - and then we'll fill up our cars for WAY cheaper.

What the heck?

Of course, the official speaking point on that one now is "well, it's a process - we'll see cheaper prices, overall, as we progress into the future."  ...or something like that.

Tetrachloride wrote:

Flash-forward to the present 

Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.

Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad.

�The condition there is worse than I expected,� he said. �... I have to be perfectly candid: Baghdad is a serious problem.�

http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/l … printstory

Throwaway question:  what are we doing in Iraq now ?

because over 2,000, maybe as many as 3,000, Iraqis died last month.

What did  the congressman think before he went? That we actually had enough troops on the ground to control it?

Damn, doesn't ANYONE understand insurgent warfare????? Or any warfare?

Sorry, I was expecting competency.

user wrote:

There was competency.

It was ignored and/or fired.

Competency has decided to resign in order to spend more time with its wife and kids.

Yeah, time for us to leave.  Perhaps we should have set a monetary limit.  X dollars spent and we're outta there.  You can invest and invest but if there's no return, at some point you have to cut your losses.

Back to "Memory Lane."   Time Magazine story says that Bush and / or a major advisor are worried that Democrats will remember to investigate Republican activities if Dems gain control of the House of Representatives.   Time Magazine

As for Bush himself, he is curtailing his traditional August working vacation at the ranch so that he can barnstorm before the midterm elections. Their outlook thus far seems so ominous for the G.O.P. that one presidential adviser wants Bush to beef up his counsel's office for the tangle of investigations that a Democrat-controlled House might pursue.

Side note:   It occurred to me that if Bush is on vacation in August and there is a September surprise, that would sure remind voters of Bush's blank look when in the classroom on 9/11.

If that story about beefing up the inhouse Counsel Office is accurate, Harriet and any newly hired WH Counsel staffers have some big shoes to fill...and/or cover tracks:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/whou … email.html
-----
Avalanche or tsumani? Pick yore poison.

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-07-23 8:17 pm)

Back in Washington, US officials who are quietly � and gingerly � making plans for postwar Iraq dismiss comparisons to the imperial MacArthur. The last thing they want to emulate in Iraq is the seven-year occupation of Japan. In fact, some officials at the Pentagon and State Department tell NEWSWEEK they hope to be able to withdraw US troops in as little as 30 to 90 days after President Saddam Hussein�s ouster � if Iraq�s military can be swiftly purged of his henchmen and turned into a pro-Western security force. That, they admit, is optimistic; more �realistically,� says a Pentagon official, the talk is of a maximum five- to six-month occupation. �The plan is to get it done as quickly as possible and get out,� says Lt. Col. Michael Humm, a spokesman for the Pentagon�s chief planner, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith.

Administration officials who are part of the Future of Iraq Project, underway since April, caution that no plans are definite. That's in part because they don't know yet which countries will be in the invading coalition, nor what Iraq's political landscape will look like after Saddam. But they are keenly wary of a long-term occupation in the heart of the Arab world, where anxieties about Western invaders date back to the Crusades. "Every day you get past three months, you've got to expect peacekeepers to have a bull's-eye on their head," said one State Department official. So eager are the Bushies to avoid being seen as occupiers that General Garner, who commanded a task force in the Kurdish north in 1991, is tentatively being dubbed "senior civilian administrator" rather than "military governor," NEWSWEEK has learned.

At the White House, where the National Security Council chairs weekly meetings on postwar Iraq, officials say that as coalition support for war has grown, so has their confidence that the occupation�s duration can be kept to a minimum. That�s in line with the pared-down view of nation-building, shared by President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which emphasizes self-reliance. Central Command is even now identifying Iraqi officers who could be relied on to lead �large portions of the Iraqi military that will be intact and serve,� says one official involved in the planning. �Suppose you get in there and then you realize the oilfields and buildings are still intact. Hey, there�s a functioning infrastructure here, unlike Afghanistan. And you have people saying, �I�d like to be part of a [democratic government] to chart the future for Iraq.� There�s no reason why you can�t do that in 30 to 60 days.�

Critics scoff, saying the Bushies are low-balling estimates of the occupation only to assuage Arab opinion. Most outside experts insist any Iraq occupation will be costly and messy, lasting a year at the very least. Among them is Scott Feil, a retired Army colonel and post conflict specialist who plans to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in hearings this week that Bush has not given Americans a real reckoning of what�s ahead. �The last time we tried to low-ball it was Vietnam,� says Feil. �We�ll be viewed as in and out, wham-bam-thank-you-ma�am. Leaving another basket case in a bad neighborhood, like Afghanistan.�

Planning for a 'maximum" 5 to 6 month occupation.  Talk about misreading the job.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin … Row=1.1.10