The Democratic Domino Theory Revisited

[elucidator]

@Sam Stone

…And yet, you’re doing the same thing now with democracy and freedom for others. Now it’s the left that’s become the, “Hey, I’ve got mine, let’s stay home” bunch. They’re the ones who wanted to leave Saddam in power and let the Iraqis try to get rid of him themselves. You’re the ones who have been making the old racist claim about how ‘those people’ can’t handle democracy because they’re too backwards, too tribal, or whatever. You sound exactly like the old southern conservatives during the civil rights movement, or like the apartheid regime in South Africa who justified their policies because the ‘wogs’ weren’t up to running their own affairs…

An argument such as this ought to embarass you, Sam. Do try, won’t you? We are not of one mind, Sam, our opinions are variable. You attach a statement to me and mine (“you’re the ones who…”) which you cannot support in any way, shape, form or fashion, save to insinuate that others speak for me. Double dog dare you to show me where I have suggested any such thing. Such underhanded tactics are beneath me, make them beneath you.

(And by the by, I don’t think the epithet “wogs” applies to the black people of South Africa, being more commonly applied to East Indians by the British. Be that as it may, it is of no consequence whether or not we consider any given set of persons as “capable” of dealing with democracy. I support democracy because it is just, not because it is efficient, which, to be frank, it isn’t.)

[pantom]

Sam Stone:
First, let’s dispense with this “bumbling CIA” nonsense that keeps getting pushed. The CIA, like the FBI and everybody else, fell down hard prior to 9/11 in a lot of important ways.
However, the idea that they crapped out on Iraq is nonsense. What happened there was strictly politically motivated. There is plenty of evidence of stiff opposition to starting the Iraq war within the CIA, the most copious of which is the entire book Imperial Hubris, by the CIA man who was only the head of the OBL unit, as I’m sure you’re aware. He goes on and on about how disastrous Iraq will be in the TWAT. The following does not sound like a man who was making bumbling judgements about WMD in Iraq, or, more importantly, whether there was an actual threat to the US from whatever WMD Iraq might have possessed:

Well, there is nothing bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American occupation and invasion of Iraq…bin Laden would then have thought that the United States must know that it is hated by millions of Muslims for enforcing sanctions that reportedly starved to death a million and more Iraqis. In this context, an invasion would sharply deepen anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, a hatred that would only worsen as Muslims watched the US military’s televised and inevitable thrashing of Saddam’s badly led and hopelessly decrepit armed forces. Then, bin Laden dreamed wildly, things would get bad for the Americans. They would stay too long in Iraq…young Muslim males would rush from across the Islamic world to fight US troops, and there - in Islam’s second holiest land - would erupt a second Afghanistan, a self-perpetuating holy war that would endure whether or not Al Qaeda survived. Then bin Laden awoke and knew it was only a dream. It was, even for one of Allah’s most devout, too much to hope for.

That’s a, you know, actual CIA agent talking. So much for that.
As to evidence that Iraq is turning out just like he said it would, the latest piece of that is truly stunning: they’re now issuing their own online magazine to recruit new Jihadis. I swear, you absolutely cannot make this shit up:

New magazine urges Jihad in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A new online magazine purportedly posted by al-Qaida’s affiliate in Iraq (news - web sites) has launched an effort to recruit Muslims to rid Iraq of infidels and apostates — its names for Americans and their Iraqi partners.
The inaugural 43-page issue was posted two days after al-Qaida in Iraq, the group led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for an attack Monday against police and army recruits that killed 125 people in Hillah, just south of Baghdad.
…
It was designed as "an attempt to refute the idea that al-Zarqawi and these people are desperate. … It shows that these people have time on their hands and don’t have to worry about mobility."

Wotta revoltin’ development again, eh? Seems our CIA man might actually have been right. Not that anyone in the Admin was listening to him, then or now. Which, of course, is the real problem, not a bumbling CIA.

As to my “extraordinary claim”, let us look at the record.
First off, the extraordinary claim started with this eye-popper:

• If you had your way, almost certainly Libya would still be in the WMD game. We wouldn’t have known about AQ Khan and the nuclear materials he was selling.

Given that this was in the context of an argument over the utility of the Iraq war, you are claiming, unless I read you wrong, that that war had a hand in discovering the activities of Khan.
Let’s examine the evidence, inconvenient as that is.
First of all, the knowledge that Libya was probably involved predated the Iraq war. Then, the confirmation came from the interception of a ship headed to Libya, and this also had nothing to do with Iraq. From global security.org:

During the 1990s, there were intermittent clues from intelligence that AQ Khan was discussing the sale of nuclear technology to countries of concern. By early 2000, intelligence revealed that these were not isolated incidents. It became clear that Khan was at the centre of an international proliferation network. By April 2000, the UK Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) was noting that there was an evolving, and as yet incomplete, picture of the supply of uranium enrichment equipment to at least one customer in the Middle East, thought to be Libya, and evidence linking this activity to Khan.
…
With the international inspections of Iran’s nuclear operations and the October 2003 interception of a ship headed for Libya and carrying centrifuge parts, Pakistan began seriously investigating A.Q. Khan. The United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency in November 2003 itself warned Pakistan of possible nuclear leaks. After two months of investigations, in late January 2004 Pakistani officials concluded that two of the country’s most senior nuclear scientists had black market contacts that supplied sensitive technology to Iran and Libya. Pakistani intelligence officials said the scientists - A.Q. Khan and Mohammed Farooq - provided the help both directly and through a black market based in the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai.

On the Oct 2003 ship seizure:

German ship seized with uranium making parts
Just a few months before Libya declared it would cease its efforts to create weapons of mass destruction, American and British agents seized a German freighter ship loaded with centrifuges and other parts that are used to create enriched uranium, the material needed to build nuclear bombs. The seizure is believed to have influenced Tripoli’s decision to suspend its weapons program last month.

It would appear that intelligence had quite a handle on Khan, and that regardless of the Iraq war, he was going down. Except, of course, that he didn’t. He was allowed to confess and that was about it for what happened to him. Pakistan is still an ally and was never in any danger of being punished for all this despite being by far the worst proliferator there is.
So, did the intelligence agencies know about Khan? Yep. Do we care at all about WMDs? On the evidence, no. We do care quite a bit about oil, though.

[Ryan_Liam]

The only place I’ve read an argument along those lines was in The American Conservative. Otherwise, most people who are skeptical about democracy’s prospects in Iraq base their skepticism on the facts that (1) the Iraqis have absolutely no historical experience with democratic government; (2) there are significant factions in their society which are inimical to democracy on principle; (3) we have good reason to doubt that the Bush Admin will tolerate any “democracy” in Iraq that freely decides to order our troops, and Halliburton etc., out of the country.

Rubbish, Iraq has experiemented with democracy before, its election in 1958. Kurdistan has had subsequent elections.

I think regarding the situation of how we couldn’t maintain the troops in Iraq, and how it costs too much, we’d be looking for any old excuse to ‘cut and run’

There are significant factions, or there were in Soviet and Eastern European society which were inimical to democracy, yet , took root, and are now somewhat stable. To deny them the chance to create a government of Democracy purely on the principle of ‘a few will object or disagree’ is laughable.

Bombs speak louder than chants.

Doesn’t get them support though does it? I mean, widespread support, which in the end is what they really do need to win.

Actually, it’s both. Young men in Iraq now – some Iraqi, some foreigners – are getting on-the-ground experience in terrorist tactics and guerilla warfare tactics; it is practically impossible for our forces, or the new Iraqi government, to kill or capture them all, or even a majority (it’s not like they wear uniforms); and those who get away will be giving us trouble for years to come, in Iraq and elsewhere.

Look at insurgent casualties, it is a killing ground they’ve only got one weapon and thats the strategical advantage, once it loses that (as more of the population realise what a fruitless cause it is) it will dissapate, and the US will of done it through military and political means to isolate hardcore elements, hell, they’re even starting that process as we speak.

That’s not how I remember it. Everybody I knew, whether for the war or against it, saw the troop buildup for what it was: A prelude to invasion, and nothing else.

Have you never heard a threat backed up by force?

And, come to think of it, when Iraqi oil is sold abroad – who gets the money?

The money is put into a UN account for Iraqi reconstruction and development, thats what I heard anyway.

Well, there is nothing bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American occupation and invasion of Iraq…bin Laden would then have thought that the United States must know that it is hated by millions of Muslims for enforcing sanctions that reportedly starved to death a million and more Iraqis.

Oh please, a superpower is hated for anything it does. Why not add Palestine and ‘stealing oil’ to that premise as well?

In this context, an invasion would sharply deepen anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, a hatred that would only worsen as Muslims watched the US military’s televised and inevitable thrashing of Saddam’s badly led and hopelessly decrepit armed forces

Yes, I’m sure all those Arab Muslims within Iraq were hating the fact their asshole in chiefs forces were getting their asses handed to them.

They would stay too long in Iraq…young Muslim males would rush from across the Islamic world to fight US troops, and there - in Islam’s second holiest land - would erupt a second Afghanistan, a self-perpetuating holy war that would endure whether or not Al Qaeda survived. Then bin Laden awoke and knew it was only a dream. It was, even for one of Allah’s most devout, too much to hope for.

Islams second holiest land is in Jerusalem, Dome of the rock and so forth, not Iraq, the holiest shrine in Shia Islam, in Najaf is what he meant. Look, regardless of what he said, US troops were going to be killed by terrorists one way or another, its as bad as saying ‘Afghanistan will become the new Afghanistan’ because we invaded it to root out his network. I won’t even start on Iraq becoming the new Afghanistan, simply because we control the countryside in Iraq, and any proper insurrection would only come from there.

Wotta revoltin’ development again, eh? Seems our CIA man might actually have been right. Not that anyone in the Admin was listening to him, then or now. Which, of course, is the real problem, not a bumbling CIA.

A magazine is a problem?

I assert only that Bush (1) has an ideology (kind of a blending of the ideologies of the Christian Coalition and PNAC, with emphasis on the latter but more lip-service to the former) which is very important to him; and (2) really wants to help out his friends (those he has addressed as his “base” – it’s not any secret, is it?). Now, it just so happens that his ideology (in both of its roots) is evil, and most of the world can see it, even if you can’t; and when it comes to helping his friends, he apparently is none too concerned about ethics or honesty (or else he’s just oblivious, like Warren G. Harding was) – nor is he concerned in the first place about the ethics of using his office in that way. None of which makes him evil. Merely corrupt and stupid.

there you have it folks, Bushs belief in God and Conservatism is truely evil, which in effect makes him evil as well.

Originally Posted by rjung
Right here.
And here.
Look, even the Bushes are cleaning up!
You think this war was undertaken for the benefit of the United States? No wonder you’re so easily misguided. The folks behind this mess couldn’t care less if the nation gets cratered into a record-breaking debt as long as they themselves benefit from the mess.
Well, it’s not as if they have facts on their side…

Not even the dumbest President serving corporate interests would want to see American power bankcrupted, just more anti war b.s Rjung doesn’t fail to serve.

(3) we have good reason to doubt that the Bush Admin will tolerate any “democracy” in Iraq that freely decides to order our troops, and Halliburton etc., out of the country.

Heres where BrainGlutton, trips himself up.

But still negligible, compared with what the war and occupation have cost in terms of money ($200 billion and still counting), lives (1500+ American and other Coalition; perhaps 100,000 Iraqi), and international reputation (you seem oblivious to the fairly obvious fact that a lot more of the world hates us now than before the invasion).

If it were upto you, the Middle East would be the continuing stagnant swamp in which the Prez described.

So with ‘negligible’ results like that, the Bush Admin would of cut and run already and declared Iraq a success, the fact it hasn’t is proving testimony to the White Houses commitment to reform and democracy in the region.

[Ryan_Liam]

“People are realizing that the captured insurgents are not super heroes. They are timid people who kill for money and they have nothing to do with Jihad,” said Karim Humadi, head of programming for Al-Iraqiyya.

“What happened … and will happen in coming days is a response to infidel deceptions and claims that the mujahideen (holy fighters) are weaker and that their attacks have abated,” said the statement attributed to the military commander of the Al-Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, Abu Aseed al-Iraqi.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=13169

[BrainGlutton]

@Ryan_Liam

there you have it folks, Bushs belief in God and Conservatism is truely evil, which in effect makes him evil as well.

Belief in God, and conservatism, might not be evil by themselves. (Or they might be.) But there is absolutely nothing worthwhile whatsoever in the Christian Coalition’s agenda – and when it turns its attention to foreign policy, what you get is evil, pure and simple. These are people who actually believe End Times prophecy is being played out in the Middle East right now – not only that, but that we should do all we can to hurry the process along. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 215:

Indeed, this [the September 11 attacks] reinforced one of the strangest marriages in the conservative movement. The Religious Right has been pro-Israel since at least the 1970s. Evangelicals believe that the Second Coming will take place in Israel – and that it will be preceded by the conversion of the Jews to Christianity; thus, both the Jews and Israel need to be saved in order to fulfill their dual roles in Christian eschatology. The highlight of the Christian Coalition’s 2002 conference was a rally for Israel. Fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements. Go to fundamentalist churches and you will find prayers to let Israel keep the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria.

You might think that, as secular intellectuals, the neocons would have found this eschatological brew a bit too strong for their tastes, and that, as Jews, they would balk at being assigned to a bit role in the Christian revelation. But the neocons have always been remarkably good at biting their lips on these subjects, treating Christian fundamentalism as something of a Straussian “noble myth” – it might be nonsense, but it advances the conservative cause. Sometimes they break ranks – Bill Kristol supported John McCain’s attempt to end the Religious Right’s stranglehold on the GOP – but his father’s infinite tolerance for the Religious Right’s peccadilloes was a much more typical neoconservative position. In one essay, Irving Kristol praised the Religious Right for its vital role in creating the Reagan majority – and conveniently forgot to mention the fact that Pat Robertson had said some pretty terrible things about the Jews.

And PNAC’s foreign policy is the same old imperialism in a new bottle. That is evil, and globally unpopular to boot. How many people outside America will not be outraged by the very idea of a “New American Century” characterized by American military hegemony over the world? Maybe you, Ryan, and maybe Tony Blair, but how many others?

I repeat: Bush is wedded to an ideological brew which is fundamentally evil, whether he realizes it or not.

[Sam_Stone]

Fareed Zakaria:

What Bush Got Right
Freedom’s march: The president has been right on some big questions. Now, if he can get the little stuff right, he’ll change the world

The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: “Could he possibly have been right?” The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things.

Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, home of the population that some claim loves the insurgents:

Haider Ajina has translated for us a poll that appeared today in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah Al-Jadeed. The poll surveyed 2,878 Iraqis in and around Baghdad:

Do you support the severe measures the Iraqi Government is taking against terrorist acts in Iraq?
93.56% = Yes
6.44% = No

How do you think Arabic satellite news companies are covering Iraqi news?

Neutral = 16.75%
Not Neutral = 7.25%
Negatively Biased = 76%

What is your opinion of U.N. Resolution 1546?

It achieves the ambitions of Iraqis for sovereignty = 73.12%
It satisfies ambition of certain Iraqi groups = 12.90%
It helps legitimise the American occupation = 13.98%

(from Powerlline)

[rjung]

@Well

Hey bud. I asked about oil. Not some totally different half twit conspiracy to hurt the US to put few million in his already very wealthy families pockets.

In other words, you can’t refute the evidence, so you’re resorting to ad hominen attacks instead. Typical apologist denial.

@Ryan_Liam

Not even the dumbest President serving corporate interests would want to see American power bankcrupted, just more anti war b.s

And again, another apologist stooping to name-calling because he’s unable to refute the evidence presented.

This is Great Debates, not Right-Wing Wank Fantasies, son; if you don’t actually have any evidence to back up your rose-colored delusions there, there’s no point in wasting our time with your denial.

[Well]

@rjung

In other words, you can’t refute the evidence, so you’re resorting to ad hominen attacks instead. Typical apologist denial.

And again, another apologist stooping to name-calling because he’s unable to refute the evidence presented.

Woohoo, lessee, your “facts” and “evidence” comes from Al-Jazeera, a left wing conspiracy web site, and a quote from Ralph Nader. Hmm, a li’l FYI sport, if you can’t find a reputable news source with facts (not just a quote from a Bush opponent and his pet group) to back em up, then anyone wasting their time trying to dissect your “evidence” is doing just that.

How about I post some links from AnnCoulter.com, Worldnetdaily, and RightwingersRUS.com and have you dissect their “news”. You have nothing there son. And I am sure with your political blinders on that you cannot see that your sources and quotes are not what anyone but you would call legitimate information and factual news sources that you don’t have to take with a bag of salt.

And When I ask about oil, it confuses the hell out of me when you present me with this shit anyway. You need to quit reaching there fella.

[PatriotX]

As quoted in the original thread referenced in the OP (Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME):

It is…not…self-evident that anti-Western
Islamist terrorism would cease or even significantly diminish with
the emergence of friendly democracies and economic opportunity
in the Middle East.

And from the original thread referenced in the OP (Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME)

"(H)ow will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this ‘how’)?"

The invasion of Iraq has increased the pool of potential terrorists, increased their opportunities to become proficient in terrorist tactics, increased their ‘dissatisfaction’ with US foreign policies, and has increased the number of people willing to aid, abet, fund, and harbor terrorists.

So the question remains and remains unanswered. The original question that forms the basis for my objections to the invasion of Iraq, “How does this benefit the US?”

As I noted earlier, prominent (and pre-eminent even) neocons have openly stated that the US’s national interests are not of primary importance when formulating Us foreign policy.

Am I the only one who thinks that US’s interests should be The primary factor when formulating Us foreign policy?

[PatriotX]

[S]hould democracy or even pluralistic political stability
be established in Iraq, this would be a tremendous
achievement of which all could be proud. Nevertheless, U.S.
policymakers sometimes assume that a democratic
government will also be friendly to U.S. policies in the
Middle East. This cannot be assumed in the case of Iraq. At
the present time, the only Arab leader who has been elected
in a fair election is Palestinian President Yassir Arafat, who
is clearly not the favored U.S. choice. Likewise, in the Gulf,
Islamists have done extremely well in recent legislative
elections in Bahrain. The Kuwaiti parliament has a strong
Islamist grouping, and free elections in other states could
duplicate this situation. Free elections in the Arab world
seldom produce pro-Western governments.

RECONSTRUCTING IRAQ: INSIGHTS,
CHALLENGES, AND MISSIONS FOR MILITARY
FORCES IN A POST-CONFLICT SCENARIO p. 25
Another paper from the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute (.pdf)
Also from the original thread referenced in the OP (Defending the Democratic Domino Theory of the ME)

Interestingly enough, according to the Arab Human Development Report from 2003.pdf (p19), the view that democracy is the best form of government and a dislike for autocracies are more widely held in ME countries than in the US/Can/Aus/NZ.

[PatriotX]

Arab Human Development Report from 2003.pdf

[manhattan]

@Nietzsche

I think I see the problem. Yes, many of the things you suggested do coincide with ideologies held by many on the left. That’s not where the point of contention lays. What you’ve done and how you’ve gone about doing it is the problem. So I’m still not sure why the left should abandon those concerns and quietly get in line behind policies and actions they rightly opposed from the get go. I understand that many who support this nightmare justify their actions by using such trite clichés as “the ends justify the means” or that it’s a “performance” issue. But to others who see things more clearly and use a bit more logic rather than clichés, there are concerns which have been proven right and are continuing to get bigger.

And yet, here we are. Democracy has the chance to flourish like we haven’t seen since the end of the cold war or the end of WWII before that. This is an historic opportunity. All I’m asking is that, for a little while, the left stop being a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism and start playing to its strengths in a positive way to take advantage of this opportunity.

Look. You have my personal guarantee that no matter how much people oppose the Iraq war that we are not going to uninvade. You can prove it illegal beyond any doubt, you can prove that the entire reason was to help Halliburton’s stock price, you can prove that Bush is really Kodos and we’re still not going to uninvade Iraq. Really, we’re not. And we’re not going to withdraw prematurely. We’re not going to allow Iran to be have nuclear weapons. Really, we’re not. Bush will never, ever, again run for President. Really, he won’t. These are hard, immutable facts and the sooner the left gets past them and gets on to the hard work of being a constructive minority party the better things will be for everybody.

Example: Got problems with war profiteering? Good! Shout it to the rafters and claim the money for the new Iraq. But rather than spouting off dark, unproven conspiracies about “Bush and his buddies” how about actually proving some cases? Given facts, people can draw their own causality lines. Really, they can. People are smart. Collect the facts, prove the facts, get the money back and stick the blame-the-administration chips in your back pocket for the next election. It’s only 20 months.

This is, or has the potential to be, a magical time in history. Don’t you guy want a piece of it?

Don’t give into hate. That leads to the dark side.

[BrainGlutton]

@manhattan

All I’m asking is that, for a little while, the left stop being a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism . . .

:rolleyes: I’m starting to feel surfeited with deja vu.

@manhattan

Bush will never, ever, again run for President. Really, he won’t.

So? One guy ain’t the whole problem. Besides, he’s still got the reins for four more years. The best thing we can do for our country and the world is get in his way at every opportunity. The best way, but not the only way, to do that is to win back Congress in 2006.

@manhattan

Example: Got problems with war profiteering? Good! Shout it to the rafters and claim the money for the new Iraq. But rather than spouting off dark, unproven conspiracies about “Bush and his buddies” how about actually proving some cases?

That’s in the works – see Blind Oversight and Custer Battles – Mother Jones, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.

[elucidator]

@manhattan

… the left stop being a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism and start playing to its strengths in a positive way to take advantage of this opportunity…

My, “nattering nabobs”. That does ring a knell.

A positive attitude is all very well, Manny. So long as we don’t lose track of the essential facts, which is that we are seeking a positive response to a ghastly situation, a fundamental ground fact that you seem loathe to admit. How then are we to trust your grasp of the situation? Especially when you proceed to insult our intelligence with a reivew of the thunderingly obvious…

…Look. You have my personal guarantee that no matter how much people oppose the Iraq war that we are not going to uninvade…(and more of the same)…

Surely you don’t imagine we are ignorant of these realities? Other than denigrating the intelligence of your political opposition, what is your point?

… unproven conspiracies about “Bush and his buddies” how about actually proving some cases?..

We have. Extensively. When we do, you guys change the subject. “No, no, it wasn’t really about WMD, it’s all about freedom and democracy.” Howzabout a bit of reciprocity, Manny? Might I suggest you start with the aforementioned ground facts, that this adventure was ill-advised, ill-planned, and an overall stupid Mongolian Cluster Fuck?

…This is, or has the potential to be, a magical time in history. Don’t you guy want a piece of it?..

Rest assured, we have no intention of folding our tents and stealing away into the night.

…Don’t give into hate. That leads to the dark side.

Thank you, Odious One Kenobe. Again, let me offer my assurance that we are not inclined to demonize a harmless minority for political gain, or slander the patriotism of good men. No doubt you find such tactics repulsive, but are too busy offering us advice regarding our attitude problem to express such criticism. Perhaps when you have more time…

Hate doesn’t lead to the dark side. Hate is the dark side.

[elucidator]

Interesting cite you got there, Sam. I was heartened when I pursued the matter a bit past the “fair and balanced” link offered. It appears that the editor of said newspaper left the employ of his previous news outlet because they wanted him to parrot Pentagon viewpoints. Says much for his credibility, or at least something.

Still, a couple of problems. I note with skepticism the precision of the polling statistics, i.e., “It achieves the ambitions of Iraqis for sovereignty = 73.12%”. Now, since they claim to have polled less than three thousand people “in and around Baghdad”, how is such a figure possible? My math skills are only a bit above our tireless and ever-loyal hamsters, but wouldn’t that require at least 10,000 respondents?

I also note my own mistake, with mild consternation: responding to the indomitable Manny, I misunderstood his suggestion regarding conspiracy theorys. Upon reflection, he is clearly referring to fiscal shenanigans, not political ones. Hence, the “WMD” hurricane of bullshit, while deplorable, does not bear directly on the matter at hand. I would have been better served raising questions about the several billions of dollars that seem to have vanished into the sofa cushions. I regret the misunderstanding.

[ElvisL1ves]

73.12% of 2878 comes to 2104.4 Baghdad-area Sunnis who replied “Yes” to that question.

[rjung]

@Well

Woohoo, lessee, your “facts” and “evidence” comes from Al-Jazeera, a left wing conspiracy web site, and a quote from Ralph Nader.

“When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger” – check. :rolleyes:

Since you seem to enjoy attacking the folks who bring you unpleasant news, try this one on for size:

I met one guy that worked for Halliburton who said he was making about $150,000 a year just to make sure some of the oil revenue was going to US oil companies. He further went on to say that he was in a board meeting in Houston, Texas where he was a facilitator of a meeting about sending Halliburton to Iraq. He said he heard Cheney’s name mentioned many times in reference to those who helped Halliburton get on track with being established in Iraq. He said during the meeting that Cheney was guaranteed a cut of the profits of Halliburton since he ensured and paved the way for the no bid contract in Iraq. There were contractors doing security work alongside US military and doing the exact same thing except the military would switch out duties and go on patrol in Baghdad. The other difference was the military was getting paid an average of $2,000 to $4,000 a month which would equal about $24,000 to $48,000 a year depending on the rank. The contractors doing the same job were making $50,000 to $90,000 a year plus other expenses. Where was the fairness in this. We are definitely not making progress because big business does not care about progress it cares about money.

–SSC Charlie C. Carlson

[manhattan]

Wee, doggie! Lookit all those Lebanese! And Kuwaiti women! And Moroccans! Anyone recall seeing so many demonstrations in the region against anything besides Israel or the Great Satan?

C’mon, guys, we’re just getting to the good part! This is the falling of the Berlin freakin’ wall! I can’t convince anybody they want a part of it? 'Cuz I’m being serious; we sure could use some help. Someone’s going to have to educate the newly free Iraqi farmers about the costs of branded seeds that go with the benefits. And sadly it ain’t likely to be anyone from my side of the aisle.

[pervert]

@manhattan

… gets on to the hard work of being a constructive minority party the better things will be for everybody.

This, I think is the hard part. With so many generations of Democrats unfamiliar with minority party status, they may need a few more election cycles to get the hang of it. I certainly hope it does not take that long. But it just might.

[elucidator]

@Manny

…And sadly it ain’t likely to be anyone from my side of the aisle…

Sadly, that is so. What do you want from us? Do you somehow imagine that democracy would thrive in Lebanon if only Ted Kennedy would get out of the way? Is MoveOn.org the primary impediment to the advance of freedom in Pakistan?

It may also very well be true that the very best thing we can do is stay the hell out of it. Our reputation is crap right about now. Never was all that great. We can’t lead without trust, except by force, and that isn’t leading, that’s bullying. If we can’t lead, won’t follow, perhaps the best we can do is get the hell out of the way.

Just be careful what you wish for. The Lebanese, for instance, have a reputation for mutual political violence that is well deserved. As much as I heartily approve of your recent flirtation with apostasy (what sort of ritual is involved with a conservative’s excommunication?), be warned: much blood will be spilled, and many a spreadsheet will need to be reconfigured. Rushing people towards democracy is a gamble and risk, wherever there is disorder, opportunity abounds for those of us with the worst possible motives. Putin for Gorbachev is not my idea of progress, nor is a free-market robber baron type capitalism a recipe for human advancement.

And if you can’t change the minds of those on your side of the aisle, the solution is simple. And we’ll keep a spot open for you.