Time to Take a Stand

By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 07 September 2007

Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq - as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that "if a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the front, it's criminal." So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with Shiite militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess what? When a Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that district falls because there's nobody left to kill, that counts as progress by the Pentagon's metric.

Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his political masters.

I've written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus published six weeks before the 2004 election, claiming "tangible progress" in Iraq. Specifically, he declared that "Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt," that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward" and that "there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security." A year later, he declared that "there has been enormous progress with the Iraqi security forces."

But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission of retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi security forces has recommended that the national police force, which is riddled with corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded, while Iraqi military forces "will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months."

Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing reality is an idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on Tuesday Mr. Bush told Australia's deputy prime minister that "we're kicking ass" in Iraq. Enough said.

Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad attacking Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don't see Congress doing anything to stop the war.

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate - but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters - political cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a "khaki election" in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can't make up their minds.

Good Lord, do you ever just read the funnies, dude? Get a life.

:(
SMW

When's the last time the funnies actually been funny?

smartmouth, yes I read the funnies.

I heard Bush in Australia refer to being in Austria at the OPEC summit. Guess Bush is upset because he just lost his brain, Karl Rove.

smartmouth, yes I read the funnies.

Read silently, don't move your lips & keep your thoughts to yourself. Nobody seems interested in what you think. So ....

:stfu

I don't put people on ignore but there are certain people who's links I never read. Truthout heads that list.

es347fan, it appears you are indeed interested or you would not respond.

What are your thoughts about Paul Krugman's excellent article?

What are your thoughts about Paul Krugman's excellent article?

Here, truthout.

I'll summarize for you EVERY fucking ConservaZombie's so-called **thoughts** about anything that casts the slightest aspersion of or criticism against the sainted RepubliFascist politicians in Washington;

M_U_S_T - N_O_T - L_O_O_K.

M_U_S_T - K_E_E_P - H_E_A_D - I_M_P_L_A_N_T_E_D - I_N - S_A_N_D.

Here, truthout.

I'll summarize for you EVERY fucking ConservaZombie's so-called **thoughts** about anything that casts the slightest aspersion of or criticism against the sainted RepubliFascist politicians in Washington;

M_U_S_T - N_O_T - L_O_O_K.

M_U_S_T - K_E_E_P - H_E_A_D - I_M_P_L_A_N_T_E_D - I_N - S_A_N_D.

Why must you be so Looney Tooney nuts about passing blame
on to Bush & Republicans.
You really need seek out a formidable psychiatrist.
You're far beyond Balmy,kookey or mere blathering idiot stage.
I Tinks yer entering into the realm of Conceited madness.
being Mad,means yer so clouded and embattled by tunnel vision
that even scurrying cockroaches,mite keep their distance,if you
pass out on the Kitchen floor,with gobs of peanut butter and
limburger cheese all over yer naked chest.

What are your thoughts about Paul Krugman's excellent article?He's doing exactly what the Dems have been doing for the last week.
No matter what the report says they have already made the case as to why it is a bad thing.
The latest robotic talking point in congress is calling this "Bush's report" so as to discredit anything positive in it. These same people praised Petraeus at his confirmation. Who changed since them, him or them?

He's doing exactly what the Dems have been doing for the last week.
No matter what the report says they have already made the case as to why it is a bad thing.
The latest robotic talking point in congress is calling this "Bush's report" so as to discredit anything positive in it. These same people praised Petraeus at his confirmation. Who changed since them, him or them?

Krugman LOOKS guilty.Right from the get-go,whenever a media
outlet like MSNBC { I doubt Krugman has the guts to appear
on Fox } has him on.He has a sneaky,kinda Guilty perverted
look about himself.As if,knowing full well,he's pullin the wool over
most people's eyes,unfamilar with his firebrand of Republican hatred.
I think he's a typical,frustrated little peevish Leftist troublemaker,
like Bill Press,who just Love to Whine like little prissy teen girls
who probably have bigger biceps,anywho.

Read silently, don't move your lips & keep your thoughts to yourself. Nobody seems interested in what you think. So ....

:stfu

Take your own advice kid.

You don't speak for anybody but yourself.

Brooks,

It is "Bush's report".

From the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&track=mostviewed-storylevel)
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

:thumbs:
DB

So the report will have no credibility?

I've already taken a stand. My stand is that I will read no articles cut and pasted by truthout.

So the report will have no credibility?

Oh please. The White House is already telling people that Petraeus is going to report a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks in Iraq since the so-called "surge." Do you actually believe that big pile of poo?

And if you do, I guess you must also then support the quick/timely withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. You must, right? Since there's so damned little sectarian violence over there now that 75% of it has been eliminated.

All those crack Iraqi forces we've trained should be able to handle the leftovers, just fine. Right?

RIGHT?

:rolleyes:

So it won't? Simple answer.

What about the negative things in the report, those will have credibility?

Funny how every politician who's been over there recently (Brian Baird D, Carl Levin D among others) says the same thing. Things have gotten better. but Krugman and truthless and non etc sitting behind a computer know better, know more.

And he's calling people zombies. Too funny.

Frogger, take your own advice and ignore me. Okay?

So the report will have no credibility?

Correct.

It will be a spin-doctored piece of war-mongering propaganda, designed with the intent to perpetuate the occupation, and therefore the conflict, in Iraq.

Thereby creating the humanitarian crisis that you complain bystander nations are not solving for us.

:thumbs:
DB

I've already taken a stand. My stand is that I will read no articles cut and pasted by truthout.

You speak for me, Frogger.

I believe every person who frequents this site is capable of finding and reading any article they so desire. Why Truthout seems to think he is providing a valuable service by posting those he finds worthwhile is beyond my comprehension. I guess he gets off on feeding the Bush-bashers. Have you noticed they're the only ones who respond to him?

I also find it interesting that he never participates in any discussion he doesn't initiate. At least he must realize he's not smart enough to carry on a conversation without having some writer's words to fall back on.

:rolleyes:
SMW

It will be a spin-doctored piece of war-mongering propaganda, designed with the intent to perpetuate the occupation, and therefore the conflict, in Iraq.


Exactly so.

The Deocrats are already trying to spin it and it hasn't even been given yet.

The Deocrats are already trying to spin it and it hasn't even been given yet.

Really?

Which Deocrats would that be.............??!?!?!?!?

Chuck Schumer for one.

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/09-09-07.jpg

Chuck Schumer for one.

The graphic you posted provides no evidence of any purported Deocrat trying to spin the yet-to-be-released Petraeus report.

How about this then.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/06/video-schumer-dumps-on-the-surge/

This is nothing more then liberal propaganda from the hate America crowd posted in the most liberal paper in America The New York Slime. to them I say :upyours:

This is nothing more then liberal propaganda from the hate America crowd posted in the most liberal paper in America The New York Slime. to them I say :upyours:
Wow, you do make some profound, insightful arguments. :thumbs:

Jester, you have it so wrong. Those of us who love America the most, want an end to this madness in Iraq. We want a President who will respect the rule of law, the Constitution, and not use our military as political pawns. We demand George Bush and Dickless Cheney be impeached and removed from office and an immediate withdrawal of all troops in Iraq, with no permanent bases in Iraq.

Jester, you have it so wrong. Those of us who love America the most, .....How do you determine who that would be?

How do you determine who that would be?

Thats easy. The people who do not support policies that harm America.
He addressed that in the next line of his post which you neglected to quote.


We want a President who will respect the rule of law, the Constitution, and not use our military as political pawns.

Thats easy. The people who do not support policies that harm America.

I think truthout can give dumb answers on his own.

I think truthout can give dumb answers on his own.

Nothing "dumb" about the truth, my friend.

There are only points you cannot refute and are unwilling to address.

:thumbs:
DB

DB,

I really heve to think long and hard before believing the natterings of someone who post a quote from Patrick Leahy, one of the most partisan members of Congress as his signature. After thinking long and hard I invariable come to the conclusion that you are wrong. Every time.

Jester, you have it so wrong. Those of us who love America the most, want an end to this madness in Iraq. ...And are also quite unable to spot sarcasm.

I really heve to think long and hard before believing the natterings of someone who post a quote from Patrick Leahy...
Yes, after all the Dhramatic talk about Rove and Novak and Plame, it's funny to see him quote a Senator who was thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking a secret document to NBC News.

Partisanship over principle I suppose.

.....after all the Dhramatic talk about Rove and Novak and Plame, it's funny to see him quote a Senator who was thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking a secret document to NBC News.

Partisanship over principle I suppose.

Guffaw.

How hilarious it is to see someone --who has pretty much denied every aspect of the outing of a CIA agent by conspirators like Rove, Novak et al-- now santimoniously puling about "partisanship over principle".

I didn't defend their crime. Since Superspy didn't qualify under the statute, there was no crime to defend. Dhrama's the one who couldn't tolerate leaks. Or so I thought.

Now the leaking seems not to bother him. Partisanship over principle I suppose.

Take your own advice kid.

You don't speak for anybody but yourself.


KID???? Ahhh, to be young again. First guess is that I'm about twice your age.

es347fan,

and I am about 5 times your age. (I am 57)

And I'm sixty four. That and a ticket will get me a ride on the Long Island Rail Road.

People who say they love America best are talking through their hats. If they actually love America they may love her differently but not best. Two parents disagree on how to raise their child. One parent is lenient and allows the child free rein and the other is more strict and sets parameters for the child. Can you say that one loves the child best or is it simply that they both love the child differently?

es347fan,

and I am about 5 times your age. (I am 57)

es is 56. That makes you..... 280? Wow!

Frogger, I stand by my statement.

I love America as I love my son when he does the wrong thing. I try to show him what is right to do, and even though what he did was wrong, I still love him. I work with him to make what he has done wrong, right.

If you have been a parent, surely you understand.

I want a President who will respect his/her oath of office; as well as my Senators and representatives. If Congress members lived up to their oaths of office to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, they would be busy impeaching the closest domestic enemy to the Constitution: Bush and Cheney.

Those of us who love America the most, want an end to this madness in Iraq. We want a President who will respect the rule of law, the Constitution, and not use our military as political pawns. We demand George Bush and Dickless Cheney be impeached and removed from office and an immediate withdrawal of all troops in Iraq, with no permanent bases in Iraq.

OldFart,

57 divided by 5 is 11.4. es is not even a teenager.... Something is wrong with your calculator.

We've already gone over this... The point is, all you people are old. :D

truthout,

your hated of Bush betrays you, You have common sense based on post #44 but you lost the will to think for yourself in your quote.

We've already gone over this... The point is, all you people are old. :D

Everyone knows old wine is better than new wine. I am a 2003 Dominus and you are an August 2007 bottle of Thunderbird.:lolhit:

Everyone knows old wine is better than new wine. I am a 2003 Dominus and you are an August 2007 bottle of Thunderbird.:lolhit:
But what if I'm not wine?? Can I be vodka instead? :D

es347fan,

and I am about 5 times your age. (I am 57)

Five times my age makes you three days older than dirt.

es347fan, perhaps you need a calculator.

57/5 = 11.4

KID???? Ahhh, to be young again. First guess is that I'm about twice your age.

Then try acting like it for a change.

:thumbs:
DB

Guffaw.

How hilarious it is to see someone --who has pretty much denied every aspect of the outing of a CIA agent by conspirators like Rove, Novak et al-- now santimoniously puling about "partisanship over principle".

I agree.

Brooks' hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.

"Partisanship over principle" is definitely his M.O. so it is consistent with his hypocrisy that he would accuse others of it.

"Partisanship over principle" is definitely his M.O. .....

Well, yes.

But then "partisanship over principle" is the M.O. of virtually every Conservazombie I have ever encountered, in person or online, in my entire life.

Well, yes.

But then "partisanship over principle" is the M.O. of virtually every Conservazombie I have ever encountered, in person or online, in my entire life.

Good point. Most of them still seem to believe that as long as a President is Republican, he is above the law.

Good point. Most of them still seem to believe that as long as a President is Republican, he is above the law.


"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
--Richard M. Nixon


:rolleyes:

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
--Richard M. Nixon


:rolleyes:

Exactly.

And because of Ford's pardon of Nixon, many Cons still feel that Nixon's position on that was vindicated.

I agree.
Brooks' hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.
Instead of talking about me, just talk to me and answer the question?

If the Valerie Superspy leak offended you so, to the point that you thought it was treasonous, then why does your signature line quote a Senator who was thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking information to NBC News?

One man's traitor is another man's hero.
Partisanship over principle I suppose.

(PS - Please answer this time. Please. - Thank You)

Good point. Most of them still seem to believe that as long as a President is Republican, he is above the law.
Did you notice that no one even asks you to explain stuff like this anymore?

You're fun, I'll give you that.

Instead of talking about me, just talk to me and answer the question?

I was not talking to you, Dhrama-queen.


If the Valerie Superspy leak offended you so, to the point that you thought it was treasonous,

Which is an opinion shared by many legal experts far more knowledgeable about such things than you are.


then why does your signature line quote a Senator who was thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking information to NBC News?

I don't know that he was.
Even if he was, I don't see what quoting the man would have to do with anything except your desperate and transparent need to make up straw-man arguments.



One man's traitor is another man's hero.
Partisanship over principle I suppose.

You certainly do your best to embody both those statements.

:rolleyes:


(PS - Please answer this time. Please. - Thank You)

You're welcome.

:rolleyes:
DB

man the lefties really dont like this petraeus report do they? I havent seen a barage of premptive strikes like this since shock and awe.

Did you notice that no one even asks you to explain stuff like this anymore?

Some people do. You, on the other hand, are usually too busy making up straw-man arguments rather than discussing anything I actually say.


You're fun, I'll give you that.

Glad you are having so much fun making up those straw-men.

:thumbs:
DB

Trav:
What do you expect from a bunch of "apparatchiki"?

man the lefties really dont like this petraeus report do they? I havent seen a barage of premptive strikes like this since shock and awe.

Not everybody swallows propaganda as easily as you do.

.

Not everybody swallows propaganda as easily as you do.

.

How did you know it was propaganda before you even heard what it said?

How did you know it was propaganda before you even heard what it said?


Because his mind is so set on it. He wouldn't be able to sleep well at night, nor give any meaning to his life unless he was absolutly sure that the vast right-wing conspiracy and propaganda machine was fully functional.

How did you know it was propaganda before you even heard what it said?
Zing!!!

I don't know that he was.
Even if he was, I don't see
Pleading ignorance on your part?

Finally, a credible argument.

Is this the kind of "stand" what we need to take?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070911/world/netherlands_axe_murder_1

Is this the kind of "stand" what we need to take?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070911/world/netherlands_axe_murder_1
Are you trying to make a point?

How did you know it was propaganda before you even heard what it said?


What makes you think I commented before his report was leaked last week?

Zing!!!

Logic isn't your strong suit...

Pleading ignorance on your part?


Nope, just calling bullshit on your bullshit.

:thumbs:
DB

Are you trying to make a point?
Nah... Although being anti-war and killing an innocent with an axe to the head is a rather large contradiction in philosophy.

(I thought it was an intersting tidbit in the news... but not worthy of a thread)