<p>Hey, at least Judith Miller paid a fair price for covering up Cheney’s treasonous outing of a covert CIA operative. A year in the slammer. </p>
<p>Too bad Cheney wasn’t her cellmate.</p>
<p>And, in fairness to the NY Times. Their coverage from Iraq during the occupation has been outstanding. Their feature stories on life in Iraq and the frustration of US soldiers in the face of an impossible mission has moved me to tears on several occasions. </p>
<p>I think they’ve done an excellent job detailing the political landscape and been balanced in their coverage of the military strategy. No other US news outlet has even come close, IMO.</p>
<p>
I read the McCaffrey report. The reason I linked to it was that it talks about SOLUTIONS for Iraq, not just cut and run. I don’t know of any conservatives who think that the solution in Iraq is purely military – that’s just ridiculous. But you’ll never GET to a political solution if the military solution doesn’t work. In his report, he suggests that we have about three years to make this work. With all the stupidity in this Democratic Congress, I’m sure they hope they can dilly-dally long enough with the US Attorney non-case, the non-funding of the troops, and the non-criminal acts of Libby to ensure defeat in Iraq. Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat I can think of who is not actively seeking the defeat of the US in Iraq.</p>
<p>Was the second half of McCafferty’s PDF a report or a routine for a high school cheerleading squad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s delusional if he thinks that large numbers of combat troops will be in Iraq in three years. Be that as it may, what does “make this work” mean? I wish somebody using phrases like “make this work” or “victory in Iraq” would tell me exactly how we will recognize that it has “worked” or that we have “won”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. I don’t know about Iraq, but he’s certainly seeking his own defeat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what’s so amazing. The same person who can spout this kind of hate speech complains about other posters being “mean-spirited”.</p>
<p>What about all the Democrats on the ground wearing boots fighting in Iraq? What about the Democrats in Congress who are Iraq war veterans?</p>
<p>I want to see you tell Admiral Joe Sestak to his face that he’s actively seeking the defeat of the US in Iraq.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that you are somehow more knowledgeable or experienced in military matters than Barry McCaffrey? From wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will amend my statement to say that Lieberman is the only Democratic politician who is not actively seeking the defeat of the US. He may be considered an Independent, but has been a leading Democrat for decades.</p>
<p>So Admiral Joe Sestak, who served in Iraq himself (and is now in Congress), he’s actively seeking the defeat of the US in Iraq?</p>
<p>Tammy Duckwork, Democrat candidate for Congress, who left two legs in Iraq? She’s actively seeking the defeat of the US in Iraq?</p>
<p>But the Republican Iraq veterans in Congress-they’re seeking victory. Oh, wait a second, there are no Republican Iraq veterans in Congress. </p>
<p>One good thing, though, Sjmom, you’ve finally crossed party lines and joined the Democrats in respecting the expertise of General McCaffrey. I really appreciate that.</p>
<p>McCaffrey is one of the retired generals who has been highly criticial of the Republican conduct of the war; one of the generals who was denounced by the neocons as a “windbag of war” when he cautioned four years ago that deposing Saddam would result in the conditions we see today. I’m glad that to know at least one neocon has finally mustered some respect for McCaffrey’s expertise.</p>
<p>First of all, I’m not a “neocon” whatever that might mean. My previous statement was simply to the effect that I can’t think of a Democratic politician who is offering any solutions for victory in Iraq. I believe that if we leave precipitously, we lose. </p>
<p>Also, I’d like to point out that I’m not that special or unique. I’m not a lawyer, military analyst, historian or political operative. I am a pretty average American housewife. There are a lot of us out there, but few post on CC or on political threads. 9/11 was a wake up call for many of us who perceive terrorism as a very personal threat to our families. If Congress insists on forcing defeat (aka premature withdrawal of our troops), don’t expect that many of us will view that as success.</p>
<p>Now I’m off to have lunch with another average American housewife from the west coast who feels the same way I do.</p>
<p>It is pretty common knowledge that we “will lose”, whether we leave precipitously or not.</p>
<p>Just depends on how many more lives and how many more billions of dollars you are willing to waste…to have the same result. Me? I say cut our losses now, since the result will be the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, what you did was to accuse the Iraq war veterans in Congress of “actively seeking the defeat of the US in Iraq”. </p>
<p>But leaving that aside, what makes you think the Republicans have a plan for victory? They voted against the readiness criteria that the DOD says is needed for our soldiers to be successful. To me, that’s planning to fail. Though I’ll admit it’s a nice contrast to the usual failure to plan.</p>
<p>How can the Republicans in Congress have a workable plan, when the leading Republican architect in Congress of the US military strategy in Iraq is so uninformed about events there, he thought that Gen. Petraeus could safely ride around outside the Green Zone in an unarmored Humvee? Wouldn’t something have to be based on reality to count as a “plan” and not a “pipedream”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, which is why I can’t understand why the Republicans support drawing resources away from the hunt for bin Ladin and away from defeating the Taliban that supported him. Why they support politicians who say they aren’t concerned at all about bringing bin Ladin to justice.</p>
<p>Why Republicans support weakening the military by stretching it to the breaking point, as evidenced by McCaffrey’s own report? </p>
<p>Why they support continuing an occupation that the NIE says has increased global terrorism and made the US less safe? </p>
<p>Other than the obvious–that they listen to what their politicians SAY, and not what they DO.</p>
<p>The Republicans in Congress may talk a very convincing game in Iraq, but it’s the Democrats in Congress who actually went over there and fought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If conyat’s interpretation of McCaffrey’s recent article as being supportive of the Democrat’s view and counter to the Bush administration views is any evidence of his reading/listening skills, then it goes a long way in explaining why he thinks that McCaffrey was an early war opponent. Whenever I have heard McCaffrey speak on the war, his views were far more in line with the administration’s than that of the Democrats. I think if you go back and look at McCaffrey’s statements you will have to take him off your list of “revered” generals and add him to your list of crack pots. That is how you make your assesments isn’t it? People who agree with you are brilliant; those who disagree are ignorant lackeys of the administration.</p>
<p>FF, go back and read about what the neocons were saying about McCaffery in the run up to the war. You’re way off base here. Either you have McCaffrey mixed up with someone else, or you’re deliberately indulging in some revisionist history.</p>
<p>Here is one such article:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087296/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087296/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How did the administration respond to McCaffrey’s criticisms? It’s at the very top of the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lie about me all you want; I don’t really care. But don’t lie about General McCaffrey or how the neocons ignored his warnings and vilified him for issuing them.</p>
<p>Oh wait, I get it, you’re mixing up my statement that McCaffrey was “highly criticial of the Republican conduct of the war” with your invented claim that I said “McCaffrey was an early war opponent.”</p>
<p>Are you really so obtuse that you don’t know the difference between those two statements? </p>
<p>Or is it just your poor comprehension skills.</p>
<p>Sure, if Bin Laden’s goal was to weaken America militarily, I’d say he has been really successful.</p>
<p>If we actually needed our military for REAL protection at the moment, we’d be sunk…and I think even a lot of rank and file Republicans, currently voicing disapproval, understand that. We can only be stretched soooooo thin, and we are already at that breaking point. Any new threat would be a disaster for America.</p>
<p>conyat, why would I care what other people were saying about McCaffrey when I have heard him with my own ears? Is that really how you make your decisions about people? By listening to what third parties say about them? Perhaps this also explains your views on a lot of things.</p>
<p>So you deny that early on, McCaffrey was been highly critical of the administration’s conduct of the war? That he said: “We had none of the force structure that our fighting doctrine calls for to conduct land operations”?</p>
<p>If you honestly think you heard that McCaffery supported the necon’s pipedreams that there would be no resistance, all our troops would be home in 6 months, you need to get your hearing checked, FF. </p>
<p>Your ears are playing tricks on you, if you think he never said the thing I just quoted above, or that it’s not a criticism of the way the neocons have conducted the war.</p>
<p>conyat, I’m certain that McCaffrey has said critical things and the criticism was probably warranted. But, you allow your Democratic filter in your brain filter out the positive things he has said. He has been supportive of the war and its rationale all along. </p>
<p>That’s OK, you’re not alone. It seems to be a common element of the thinking process of the left these days - quotes or news that can be used against the administration: Brilliant!; quotes or news supportive of the administration: not heard or “boy is that guy dumb”. The bottom line on McCaffrey is that he is much more aligned with the administration’s views than those of the Democrats. Perhaps its time to take him off your “brilliant” list.</p>
<p>“If Congress insists on forcing defeat (aka premature withdrawal of our troops), don’t expect that many of us will view that as success.”</p>
<p>Definition of success, please?</p>
<p>“One good thing, though, Sjmom, you’ve finally crossed party lines and joined the Democrats in respecting the expertise of General McCaffrey.”</p>
<p>Expertise? He was part of the Powell/Schwarzkopf lie and coverup on the fantasy destruction of the SCUD missile bases in 1991.</p>
<p>FF, unlike the Republicans, I don’t insist that someone goosestep to a party line to be acceptable. Before you try to paint me with that lie, think back on who it was vilifying McCaffrey anytime he dared to suggest that policy in Iraq be based on actual military strategy and not pipedreams.</p>
<p>It was the neocons. </p>
<p>But you’ve proved my point, once again, FF. Anytime Republicans try to point a finger at someone, it’s to cover up their guilt over something they know they did themselves. Claiming the Democrats planted the Terry Shiavo memo on them was a classic example. Trying to make out that it’s the left who should be vilifying McCaffrey–when it was the right smearing him all along–is another.</p>
<p>Well, I’ll take on Barry McCaffrey. He was the most inept drug czar in the nation’s history (and I worked with his office directly). He redirected prevention and treatment money to the military in Columbia, and to the Taliban. (yes, you read that correctly). He had no respect for researchers, for community treatment professionals, or really, for anyone outside military operations. And then tried to run a series of tv ads in violation of FCC regulations, resulting in further cuts to drug prevention activities.</p>
<p>In Iraq, he had his soldiers kill Iraqis after a ceasefire was declared, in a complete breakdown of military discipline.</p>
<p>The icing on the cake?</p>
<p>In June of 2005, he surveyed Iraq on behalf of U.S. Central Command and wrote an optimistic report afterwards. In it, he says the U.S. senior military leadership team is superb and predicts the insurgency will reach its peak from January-to-September 2006, allowing for U.S. force withdrawls in the late summer of 2006.</p>
<p>Another wonderful 2006 quote from McCaffrey: “The situation is perilous, uncertain, and extreme — but far from hopeless. The U.S. Armed Forces are a rock. This is the most competent and brilliantly led military in a tactical and operational sense that we have ever fielded…”</p>
<p>Now he’s just another tv shil.</p>