897 Americans dead so Iraqis can blog. Hell yeah, it's worth it. I know I'm proud of this preemptive war.

Oh wait, make that 898...

no... this just in... 899...

whoops, make that 900 American dead in Iraq.

Yeah. That's it for today.

I hope.

"As freedom takes hold in Iraq..."

According to what, FOX News? Your denial is beyond belief -- but your ability to fantasize is admirable.

American reporters haven't been able to leave the "green zone" for the last few months because it's so bloddy dangerous -- so how the fuck would anybody know about "freedom taking hold" in Iraq?

BTW:

FIVE AMERICANS DEAD IN 24 HOURS.

Five, David.

Line up five of your friends and imagine them dead so some Iraqi fuck can blog and correct American's grammar.

Invading Iraq = Patriotism, my ass.

It's fucking treason and the Bushies are criminals.

please see this about that

David, excellent post. Americans have died before for their own freedoms and for that of others; Iraq is yet another example. Iraqis finally have the right to free speech, which is a beautiful thing, and is guaranteed by the new Iraqi constitution.

"Some Iraqi fuck," Shark? Lovely sentiment. Nope, the Left that you represent isn't at all racist. Just lovely, I tell you.

"Iraqi" is a nationality, not a race.

So what you're saying then, JR, is that it's OK to bash someone on the basis of nationality?

Are you saying it's OK to conflate the two in order to use more inflammatory language against another commenter?

Many of the reporters didn't leave the Green Zone during the calmest times, hell, they could have gone out the gate of the CPA compound and found as many man in the street Iraqi views as they needed. Hell I went all over Baghdad and parts South, I never saw a reporter. They sit in the Al-Rasheed and the Palestine hotels and look out the window and write something before they hit the bar.
Baghdad and Iraq as a whole are stil messed up, but there is a great chance that things will improve and become peaceful and stable, whereas before, under Saddam, there was no chance at all. If you haven't been there, you haven't seen the slow rebuilding, and you haven't talked to the Iraqis that are trying to work to better themselves, and their situation, because they know there is that chance.

Only the people both in Iraq and abroad who think everything can be handed to someone on a platter, immediate and perfect and complete, are dumb enough to sit around saying "All is lost!" usually coupled with "I told you so!".

more wise words, SFC

This is insane. Is anybody actually reading what the Iraqi's say?

Iraqis are speaking and saying 'get the fuck out' to Americans.

We are responding by saying, 'oh this is good! They can now speak freely. This proves we have done the right thing and that we must stay the course'.

Lord, Rod Serling has been showing up at my house a lot lately.

Plausible case for war? Presidential accountability? Al Queda? Osama? None of this rings a bell to anyone?

So Iraqis now have the freedom to say....um, what were they saying? I'm not sure, must be some of that internet 'chatter' that Ridge talks about.

BCB (#11), is the fact that you have the freedom to come here to Blogcritics.org and post your views important to you? Would it be better if you did not have that freedom? Are you willing to give up your right to free speech?

Isn't freedom worthwhile? The people who fought in the American Revolution thought so. Is freedom only worthwhile for people who live here? Why not Iraqis?

To have a debate about whether Iraqi freedom was worth the cost of the war so far is one thing, but to state that it is "insane" to rejoice at the ability of people to speak their minds, well, that sounds anti-freedom. I'm sure that's not what you mean, right?

to state that it is "insane" to rejoice at the ability of people to speak their minds, well, that sounds anti-freedom. I'm sure that's not what you mean, right?

No. What is insane is the logic of being somewhere "as long as it takes", to ensure that the people there have the right to continually tell us to get out.

BCB (#13):

1. The people telling us to get out do not include everybody in Iraq. We are hearing from the most vocal contingent of the country, and as yet no surveys have been done that would cut the muster here in the U.S., for a variety of reasons.

2. So why are people telling us to get out? Is it because they preferred life under Saddam's regime? We don't need to go through the list of thing Saddam did to his people, do we? Of course, there is a group of people who *would* prefer life under Saddam -- those close to him and the religious minority that oppressed the majority. Those who lived lives of luxury must surely hate the interruption of their lifestyle.

3. Is it because they would prefer life under the rule of people who are currently trying to kill them? After all, most of the bombings lately have been against Iraq targets.

4. Is it possibly because, like Spain, and like Manila, they believe that the immediate pain, right now, of the bombings will stop if the US leaves, and they're not thinking about what that would mean next year or the year after?

THere is plenty of reasonable disucssion to be had, but not with people who are quick to call others "insane" for making simple and logical statements.

1. The people telling us to get out do not include everybody in Iraq. We are hearing from the most vocal contingent of the country,

Yes, I know.

2. So why are people telling us to get out? Is it because they preferred life under Saddam's regime?

Why would you draw that conclusion? So if it's not an American presence they want, it must be Saddam? It's an either/or for them?

We don't need to go through the list of thing Saddam did to his people, do we?

No, why would we need to do that? Perhaps though, we can discuss why the safety of Iraqi people is more important than the safety of Americans?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Actually, I could answer your 4 speculations about WHY they would prefer us to leave....or I could read their blog and find out for certain.

THere is plenty of reasonable disucssion to be had, but not with people who are quick to call others "insane" for making simple and logical statements.

I said THIS is insane. Not others. Meaning THIS viewpoint. You certainly do not have to have reasonable discussion with me.

Reading the Iraqi blogs, it looks to me like now that the voices are free they're asking for the same for their bodies through the removal of the occupying army.

Hey, I wouldn't want a foreign army here either. It's perfectly natural and understandable that they want us gone.

HOWEVER, if we leave right now, it will be chaos. And vastly more death. And then Saddam-lite will take over. And then the 900 American dead will have died for almost nothing.

If we stay the course, Iraq may truly be free. It may be a lighthouse for the rest of the Arab world. And it may cost another 900 American dead before the insurgency is crushed and US troops can leave.

Is it all worth it? That's subjective. But leaving now would be the worst possible scenario, for all involved.

If we stay the course, Iraq may truly be free.

While I don't think we can just pull out, either, a reasonable scenario based on historical precedent is that after the U. S. leaves, Iraq will turn into a semi-totalitarian/dictatorial state, perhaps along the lines of Egypt (or worse), probably in less than twenty years.

(I'm writing this down and will check back with you in 2024.)

Heh.

Maybe. I hope not. We'll see. :-/

Here is one of the brilliant Iranian bloggers:
http://www11.brinkster.com/ganymede/comment.asp?cid=100

Manning: "Some Iraqi fuck," Shark? Lovely sentiment. Nope, the Left that you represent isn't at all racist."

Just for the record:

1) I don't represent the Left. I'm a "Reactionary Liberal" --

(which means I'm so conservative that I oppose the current "conservatives", can justify violence in order to preserve democracy, oppose any and all oligarchies, and I don't take shit from nobody);

2) I'm loathe all nationalities on principle.

2) Iraqi is not a race. It's a fake nationality imposed on a bunch of medieval tribes by the British government in 1920.

3) I know plenty of "American fucks", and reserve the right to wave at them as I pass by every now and then.

4) I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.

5) What will you people say when Iraq votes for a democratically established theocracy that is hostile to US interests?

4) I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.

Some people learn from experience, some don't. Some think it's worth facing up to reality, some think ego-protection is more important. Some are realists, some are Stepford-right-wingers.

I'm still amazed that the once 'conservative', isolationist, we're not the policemen of the world and don't do nation building folks are falling over each other to paint a smiley face on the bloody disaster that is Iraq.

There's a list of 20 conservative, yet contradictory platforms that is circulating around via email. I think you just came up with number 21.

************

1) The U.S. should get out of the United Nations, BUT our highest priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

2) "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

3) Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

4) The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

5) group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for Governor of California as a Republican. Then they are youthful, hollywood indiscretions.

6) A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind with little regulation.

7) Jesus loves you, but shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

8) If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

9) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

10) HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.

11) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

12) Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

13) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his reelection campaign as the "war president".

14) A president lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, a solid 'defense' policy in a 'war against terrorism'.

15) Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, AFTER we rewrite the Constitution giving government the power to decide who is in your family.

16) The public has a right to know about Hilary Clinton's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

17) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

18) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".

19) Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for your Daddy and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to fix it so you can graduate from Yale without studying much, dodge the draft in the Texas National Guard, get the Governorship of Texas, and then have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the U.S.

20) Toot the 'small government' horn to death but then spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same time returning as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.

Boom, the problem is that "conservative" applies to a lot of people and rarely do individuals hold anywhere close to those contradictory views. My husband and I are both conservative. He is completely against gay marriage. I am for it. I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. He is pro-choice and pro-death penalty. We both support open borders.

I assume my liberal friends also do not march in lockstep with the "party line."

Actually, Justene, I looked at the email again, and it said contradictory Republican platform, not conservative. My error, but still pretty well aligned with the same base.

Of course, I realize that not all members of a certain group or political bent agree with their platform 100%. But it doesn't mean that the platform can't still be viewed as contradictory, right?

CA Republicans tend to be more moderate than other Republicans. There's something in the Texas Republican Party platform that offends me but the gray cells can't recall what. I can't remember the last time the platform mattered much. I don't think that candidates are even required to agree to it. That said, my off-the-cuff responses would range from "is that really the platform or someone's suggestion based on pulling together contradictory opinions" to "the platform is phrased broadly to encompass the differing viewpoints and contradicts itself when construed narrowly". Mostly though, my response is when was the last time anyone besides the insiders and political junkies read the platform? Please don't ask me to read it and come to an informed opinion.

Okay, Justene, sorry if you feel slighted or offended by the comment it shouldn't be taken personally by anybody. You are one of the last people I would want to offend, and not because you are the censor, but because you have shown civility in your discourse and have never attacked.

With that said, and not to be smart, but how about if I say this, instead of 'platform'.....

There is an email circulating around, that contains a list of contradictory ideologies, that Republicans and Conservatives may not endorse, but that the Republicans and Conservatives in power are nevertheless engaging in and advocating without any hindrance from their base.

Would that be more accurate?

I just think that is true of both sides. I was at a speech by a very liberal theologian. I like his spirituality but his politics are 180 degrees from mine. At one point in the speech, he complained that the government was too busy taking care of its own and kindness stopped at the Mexican border. Ten minutes later, he was on about why are we in Iraq "playing cowboy", instead of "taking care of our own". Now I can see if he distinguished between helping the poor of Mexico and what we're doing in Iraq. He didn't though. He complained about taking care of our own and then complained about not taking care of our own.

I think there is a certain amount of human nature in holding what are outwardly contradictory opinions and still not being a hypocrite.

About Texas Republicans:

The Texas Republican Party met in San Antonio last month and approved a 2004 platform that included these words:

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation."
----
The Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and religious discrimination, said it was dismayed about the platform plank and other language in the document that describes as "a myth" the separation of church and state


Perhaps it is a myth - but only for this administration and the Texas Republicans.

I just think that is true of both sides

This is true. I would agree with that. I think though, with the rise of numerous non-profits, PACs, political awareness groups, etc. like Moveon.org or mediamatters.org, with the momentum Dean got in the beginning, etc. I think there's a good indication in this country that a lot of people are displeased with Bush's political strategies, agendas and his handling of the war on terror. I think perhaps the contradictory happenings have irritated someone enough that they created an email about it. Some of those contradictory policies like 'health care for all Iraqis good, for all Americans bad' affect the lives of millions of people and I'm sure some get disenfranchised. For my part, I cut and pasted an email I received, here, much like many bloggers, including Jan Hermann often do.

The only difference between what I posted and this entire blog would be that a lot of the contradictory things in my comment can be proven to have happened or be happening and affecting the lives of many.

(Yawn.) The Iraqis like being occupied, falsely arrested and tortured. The American Indians were lucky to get baubles in return for their land. And, the slaves were happy. It is all the same mentality.

The erstwhile Calpundit on the Texas Republican platform.

Contrast it to the Calfornia Republican platform.

CA Republicans tend to be more moderate than other Republicans.

As a Californian, I have to disagree vehemently.

Take a look at Bill Thomas and Richard Dreier - these are typical Republicans from California, and they are far from reasonable.

Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been (among other things) working his heart out to subsidized corporations for off-shoring their work. (He also called the Capitol police on Democrats in his committee, but that's another story.)

Dreier, my Representative, is smoother but a flaming hard-right-winger. If it's neoconservative, Dreier is for it. As I write this, I'm looking at a letter from him in which he celebrates how the tax cuts for the rich (he's one of them) have helped everyone, ignoring the fact that besides getting squat for tax cuts, the average household saw their real wages drop 2.6% last month (and it's worse here in California with gas at $2.14/gallon today, higher fees and taxes, etc.)

I'm afraid that "more moderate" isn't the right description for CA Republicans.

I did not limit my use to those in office. Indeed, many CA Republicans cross over and vote Democrat. But if you want to look at elected officials, you have Arnold and Riordan, both of whom pulled much Democratic vote and are called by the party faithful RINOs (Republican in name only). Even Dreier's more moderate than that Texas platform. Abolish the IRS? Please.

I can't tell you how many republican meetings in CA I've attended where discussion comes up about removing the pro-life plank from the platform and then the pro-life supporters say "well, let's just not discuss it." I doubt that happens in Texas Republican circles.
They're not as liberal as Democrats but certainly more so than the rest of the country.

you have Arnold and Riordan, both of whom pulled much Democratic vote

Well, Riordan has proven himself less than moderate recently :-) but he did do a good job as mayor.

Arnold was a reasonable alternative since it was a case of "Anybody but Davis or that slug Bustamante" for many here. Personally, I still think a more conservative Republican than Arnold would have made a better governor.

So far, Arnold has simply borrowed billions (which only delays the reckoning), he has gotten the prison guards to replace their immediate raise of 10.9% with 5% immediately, 5% in January and 5% next July (if you did the math you're right - his budget-balancing skills have gotten the guards to give up a dime in return for three nickels), he makes agreements then breaks them, etc. etc. etc.

A fiscal conservative like Tom McClintock, even though he's somewhat immoderate in the religion department, would have been much better for the state and we would have seen real progress by now.

"What will you people say when Iraq votes for a democratically established theocracy that is hostile to US interests?"

Nuke 'em. ;-)

"a myth" the separation of church and state

It is "a myth", in the sense that it has no Constitutional basis.

If I recall correctly, the whole "seperation of church and state" thing was just the writing of Thomas Jefferson, not law of the land.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

"it's worse here in California with gas at $2.14/gallon today"

Blame your state's environmental laws, not President Bush.

Gas is under $1.90 a gallon here in Florida.

Low supply plus high demand equals a relatively high price.

Now, why is it that we can't utilize Alaskan oil reserves? Oh, that's right. Democrats in the Senate pandering to environmentalists. I almost forgot...

Red China's growing appetite for oil, along with India's, plays a major role in the relatively high gas prices we are experiencing.

Also, the terrorists in Iraq are not helping.

Long-term, the liberation of Iraq will help increase global supply of the petroleum commidity. And drilling in ANWR would help too...

"it's worse here in California with gas at $2.14/gallon today"

Blame your state's environmental laws...

I doubt it. More likely it's your high incomes. From what I've seen, gas prices correlate most closely with ability to pay.

Hey, if they can pay it, why are they bitchin'? :)

Red China's growing appetite for oil, along with India's, plays a major role in the relatively high gas prices we are experiencing.

Not to mention the devaluation of the dollar brought on by this administration's spending policies. The oil producing nations re-price oil so their income is the same in various currencies.

I don't have today's data, but a couple of months ago when oil prices in the US were up 38%, European prices had dropped a fraction of a point (Business Week had an item).

That mechanism is still working, and when the Euro buys more dollars, they pay less and we pay more.

It's the deficits (both the internal government deficit and the trade deficit).