I’m surprised this story isn’t front page news on either the BBC or the Washington Post. Is no one interested in the bombing of the Iranian President’s motorcade?
Jeff Goldstein has a great post with many, many links. But the best part is Steve in Houston’s comment.
It’s long and worth the read but here’s a snippet that basically summarizes:
“If you begin with the assumption that, say, the New York Times thinks the war on terror and the war in Iraq are just a bunch of bullshit, then this kind of reporting makes complete and perfect sense. Same with Dean’s and Murtha’s and Pelosi’s and Kerry’s pronouncements.
It’s the kind of fundamental difference that I’m afraid can never really be bridged, much like that between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.”
Explains a lot.
Here’s a photo some of you will like!
You know, the plan everyone says that Bush doesn’t have. The one described simply as “As the Iraqi’s stand up, we will stand down.”
Henry Kissinger prefers that we stay longer. He makes valid points but there are a lot of “ifs” here.
“The views of critics and administration spokesmen converge on the proposition that as Iraqi units are trained, they should replace U.S. forces — hence the controversy over which Iraqi units are in what state of readiness. But strategy based on substituting Iraqi for U.S. troops may result in perpetuating an unsatisfactory stalemate. Even assuming that the training proceeds as scheduled and produces units the equivalent of the U.S. forces being replaced — a highly dubious proposition — I would question the premise that American reductions should be in a linear relationship to Iraqi training. A design for simply maintaining the present security situation runs the risk of confirming the adage that guerrillas win if they do not lose.”
I suspect the Iraqi’s themselves can build up their own forces as time goes on and do this as needed. In the meantime, I suspect that as they become more confident, they will want us to go.
This is actually funny.
From the link in the link:
The jury remains out over whether democracy in the Arab world would yield governments more supportive of U.S. interests, produce populaces less sympathetic to jihadists or prevent al Qaeda from pursuing its goals through terrorism. At stake is more than presidential rhetoric. Democracy promotion has become the sole and defining element of President Bush’s long-term counterterrorism approach. That is why the administration has an obligation to go beyond assertion and demonstrate convincingly that its one-dimensional strategy will yield the desired result. If it cannot, the administration risks putting all of our security eggs in the wrong basket.
Maybe we should have run a “test” first. lol. Do you suppose that would have helped? Kind of like in big business you test out the market before running the campaign in a major area.
There has been so much going on lately and the President has found his voice again. I look forward to tonight’s speech.
UPDATE: Varifrank is doing us the service of keeping an eye out for evidence that our new feel good policy of no torture will result in the other guy being nicer too. Maybe he can watch for how our world reputation improves with the nonrenewal of the Patriot act also since that’s been another major worry. eh?
My take on torture is that if you don’t follow the rules, then we don’t have to follow the rules. Torture shouldn’t be allowed on those who get swept off the street during a battle, but if you got “the guy” then……..Try writing that into an official policy. Exactly. So to ban all forms against everyone seems excessive. In all honesty though, I haven’t kept up with the debate. Feel free to correct me, but I suspect there already is enough on the books to keep us from torturing willy nilly out there.