[eDebate] ans Bauschard
Wed Aug 1 22:13:07 CDT 2007
Korcok, where to begin.
First off, please define success in Iraq. And if you say "When we win," you
have to go sit in the corner. When, FOUR YEARS after "mission accomplished,"
Baghdad residents have about 2 hours of electricity a day, it's obvious that
it would have been really helpful to have a plan for postwar Iraq beyond
protecting the Oil Ministry.
Second, enlighten us on how the progress we've been told is being
made thousands of times is FINALLY actual progress and not complete
First it was "when we get Saddam, it's over." Then it was "how about a new
Iraqi flag that spits in the face of Arab tradition?" Then it was "okay,
elections! That'll be victory!" Then "A constitution will mean we are
Now the right wing is down to "Only 100 people were killed today in
sectarian violence." Hell, the Pentagon is proud that "only" 73 American
soldiers were killed last month.
Pretty soon we'll be hearing "The sun didn't swell into a red giant and
devour the Earth. So we're making good progress."
And as far as the Brookings op-ed, they say we're making progress on the
military front. Sure. We kicked ass on the military front in Vietnam - we
killed a metric assload of Viet Cong and NVA and still wound up humiliated.
The difference here is we got sucked into Vietnam - Iraq was a war of choice
from the beginning. And you know how little a pro-war article has to do with
reality when it starts off with the high morale among our troops - implying
that if you doubt the mission, you're not supporting the troops. Never mind
that giving the troops the equipment they needed at the beginning - body
armor, blast-resistant vehicles - would have been supporting the troops more
than the mere words that the right wing is happy to give them. Oh, and
magnetic ribbons. Can't forget those.
I do applaud the authors for finishing with "How much longer should American
troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail
to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this
mission?" Perhaps you might answer that DIRECT question posed by the authors
And as for Greenwald's article...I'm no fan of *ad hominems*, but it is
relevant to show that someone has been wrong before on the same subject -
it's called "credibility." If that word has lost meaning for you since
1/20/01, think "Alberto Gonzales" and you'll have the antonym.
And again, regarding *ad hominems*, it would be wrong to point out that your
recent posts would be pompous if they had any substance at all to them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman