Mmm...Fraud

So how about that political progress in Iraq? Well, Time says it's actually a fraud. See more from Kevin Drum, Marc Lynch, and Ilan Goldenberg. Basically, the Iraqi cabinet seems to have cobbled something meaningless together so that Ryan Crocker can go before congress and say that just when it looked like the administration was going to need to report (fake) security progress but no political progress -- bam! -- in the nick of time along comes some (fake) political progress.

The difference, one assumes, is that Crocker and Petraeus won't be mentioning the part about how it's all fake. Then whatever they say, Bush will further exaggerate three or four notches, while Dick Cheney goes for five or six and Condoleezza Rice keeps her reasonable rep by leaving it at one or two notches of additional misleadingness. I'm excited. Have I mentioned that Bush wants $50 billio more dollars and that maybe all this cash we've been throwing away on Iraq had instead funding productive investments (be they public or private sector) wages might be going up instead of down?

Comments

These wars have cost an estimated 1/2 trillion $$ to this point. It is reasonable to posit tens of billions have been skimmed off the top and deposited directly into accounts belonging to intimates of various administration figures. Bush, Cheney and dozens of Afghan and Iraqi politicians and business persons are fabulously wealthy because of these wars. On that you can bet your house.

Posted by steve duncan | August 29, 2007 8:06 PM

How many people know the difference between a million and a billion? That when Bush asks for 50/200/500 billion, it's not just some garden-variety pork, he's really asking for (and getting) the entire store?

If a politican presented 63.6 million of anti-poverty spending, and rhetorically equated it with 4.2 billion in tax deductions, how many people would cotton on to the scam?

Posted by roublen | August 29, 2007 8:27 PM

Of course, now that there is a presidential primary underway, one would hope that *our* candidates (and who knows, maybe one of the wackos on the other side will break; Brownback?) will use this opportunity, and press attention, to destroy these false claims.

I know of a certain senator who has been establishing her bona fides with the SERIOUS people, and would be in a good position to pivot on this and make the case, and be taken SERIOUSLY.

Would be very smart politics as well.

Posted by Andruw | August 29, 2007 8:38 PM

CNN - Lou Dobbs (with a sub), I believe, reported that Gates didn't know about the 50 billion until he saw it in the WaPo. A DOD spokesman confirmed it. They also reported that Gates is issuing different assessments by at least 4 others (including Adm, Fallon) besides the Pet report.

It is re-broadcast at a later time slot every evening, if you'd like to catch it.

Is Gates putting the brakes on Bush and Cheney?

Posted by magisterludi | August 29, 2007 8:42 PM

O, how ye doubters will wail and gnash your teeth, When General Petraeus Gives His Report.

Liberals will weep in the streets, and Spartacists will order Sean Hannity merchandise, such, such will be the power of His words.

Posted by El Cid | August 29, 2007 8:54 PM

Matthew, why don't you have a cool avatar and quote like Sully does?

Posted by yoyo | August 29, 2007 8:55 PM

As to the $50 billion, rest assured that the Democrats will give BushCo all the bucks he wants. We've seen this movie before.

The Dems could stop the Iraq nonsense in an instant by passing REAL funding (i.e. actually paying for the war via a repeal of the Bush tax cuts as opposed to just borrowing more money from China and handing the bill to our kids). But don't worry, that's not going to happen. The Dems whore for the same fat cats as the Reps. See, it's all part of our 1 party "democracy".

Posted by kafka | August 29, 2007 9:11 PM

Of course, Time's article is just plain false. Which is no surprise, given that the MSM's purpose is to elect Democrats, and they want to do that by showing Iraq in as bad a light as possible.

Time's article states that "The Sadrists are a powerful presence in parliament and in several key government ministries. Their Mahdi Army militia has infiltrated the Iraqi Security Forces. As a practical matter, an agreement to reconcile with former Ba'athists is next to meaningless without Sadr's acquiescence."

Which, of course, is utter crap. We see just today that Sadr is already marginalized, so much so that he has to call a "Six-Month Shutdown of Mahdi Army".

Not that I'd expect the Reality Based Community to accept reality.

Posted by Al | August 29, 2007 9:23 PM

Yeah, Sadr marginalized--how many times have we heard that one before?

Posted by William Burns | August 29, 2007 9:27 PM

Al; "Which is no surprise, given that the MSM's purpose is to elect Democrats"

The other Al--Gore says hello.

Do you right-wingers ever actually pay attention to what is in the MSM, except the random day they mention a negative fact about the GOP?

Or, Al, do you think, really, the MSM was on Gore's side in 2000? Or Bill Clinton's side in the 90's? Do you have a friggin' cable-ready tv?

Posted by Andruw | August 29, 2007 9:35 PM

"The Dems whore for the same fat cats as the Reps. See, it's all part of our 1 party "democracy"."

Got that right on the nose.

And it ain't over. See the report in "Raw Story" that says a study estimates the Pentagon's plans for an attack on Iran will be MASSIVE - over 10,000 targets will be hit in Iran - aiming for full-scale regime change.

Story is here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html

PDF of the study is here:

http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

How much do you think it will cost to deal with the Iranian retaliation? Another $50 billion? I think NOT! Look for another $10-20 billion PER MONTH on TOP of the current cost of Iraq.

Just replacing all the hardware that will be expended on Iran will beggar the current military budget, most likely.

It's all about the money. And when you're talking this kind of money, there's no stopping it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 29, 2007 9:45 PM

Yup. War with Iran is coming. I don't know what to say about that except it's fucking depressing. And Democrats will be overwhelmingly for it when it happens.

Posted by Antid Oto | August 29, 2007 9:56 PM

Trawinick - This thesis is still somewhat new and controversial--but there is enough truth to it that it is beginning to stick. Whatever the failures of American strategy in Vietnam, there is no doubt that the anti-war left pushed for American failure and accomplished it by persistent and vigorous legislation. And that is the crucial issue. If the architects of the Vietnam War in the Johnson administration can be criticized (as Moyar does) for not doing enough to win the war, the later anti-war left actively pursued American defeat and humiliation as their goal. They didn't merely want us to withdraw; they wanted us to lose, and they did whatever was necessary to make sure
that happened.
So instead of being a story of the failure of imperialist, war-mongering Republicans, the Vietnam War was the story of two separate failures by Democrats. The Democrats who started the war held back from using the force necessary to win it--and the Democrats who ended the war deliberately knocked all of the remaining props out from under the South Vietnamese government to ensure the defeat of an American ally.
This is the wider Vietnam story that the left has never understood. They have always regarded Vietnam and Watergate as the glory days they long to relive. It was a time in which their political faction was temporarily triumphant, hounding two hated presidents out of office in disgrace.
But for everyone else, those events and their aftermath--the whole "national malaise" of the 1970s--was a painful period of national humiliation, for which we are still paying the price. The collapse of American power and credibility, combined with the "Vietnam Syndrome" that enshrined timidity as the cornerstone of American foreign policy, emboldened the Soviet Union and encouraged its invasion of Afghanistan--which gave birth to the "mujahadeen," the movement that gave Osama bin Laden his start and established his reputation. It also led to President Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, which assured the success of the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution.
So the twin pillars of the contemporary Islamist threat--al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran--owe their origins to the collapse of American power in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
What new disasters wait to be spawned in the aftermath of a self-imposed defeat in Iraq?
Samuel Johnson is supposed to have said that nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging. What will the American people do when they are required to meditate seriously, for the first time, on the full, concrete ramifications of a defeat in Iraq? What will they think when they hear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting of Iran's eagerness to fill the "power vacuum" that will open up in Iraq after the "collapse" of "the political power of the occupiers"?

That is why Antid Oto is right.

Democrats know the debacle when they went from Harry Truman Democrats to Marxist kids - the Jewish-Leftist McGovernites and Carter wussbags that lost Vietnam then submitted to the Ayatollahs and Soviets. That set up today's conflict with the 60 or so combatant elements of radical Islam the "Old Guard Lefty-Jews" set in motion by their craveness. (Including not a few Neocons)

Another 40 years of people believing in Lefty anti-Americanism, treasuring defeat? Not worth it. Hillary knows that if she can bulldoze through the Soros Jews and other Lefties...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 10:20 PM

Antid: Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I couldn't disagree more--the Dems will not support an attack on Iran.

We've had one attack on a nation that wasn't attacking us or any of our 'friends' in the middle east. We all know how that worked out.

Dems can be diffuse and frustrating in their conduct on this stuff, but, no way. And he won't do it without a vote. And Bush won't get a majority of votes on that.

No, all their bets are on our grand adventure in Iraq. Everything else is bluster.

Posted by Andruw | August 29, 2007 10:26 PM

Chris Ford: "bulldoze through the Soros Jews"

Just wanted to make sure everyone read that post, as it was so long and unreadable I understand most wouldn't.

Chris Ford: "bulldoze through the Soros Jews"

Posted by Andruw | August 29, 2007 10:31 PM

Yep, true colors on display there.

Posted by Steve | August 29, 2007 10:35 PM

Andruw: The Senate already voted 97 to nothing in support of a nonbinding declaration that Iran is effectively making war on us. That's how it will be cast, when it happens. We will be told that Iran is attacking American troops in Iraq and we have to fight back.

I hope you are right. I am not 100 percent sure you aren't. But more than 50 percent.

Posted by Antid Oto | August 29, 2007 10:45 PM

But mommy, I shit my pants for freedom!

Posted by Al | August 29, 2007 10:52 PM

What?

Posted by Antid Oto | August 29, 2007 11:22 PM

"What?"

Uh, I think someone's making fun of the Al-bot.

Posted by fnook | August 29, 2007 11:43 PM

"So how about that political progress in Iraq?"

Matt,

Your sarcasm would have more sting had you written an informational post on this political progress first (even one expressing your doubts). Instead, you ignored it until you had some negative spin from lefty bloggers you could link too. That's pretty lame.

Interesting to see though that you are now attempting to characterize Ryan Crocker as well as David Petraeus as political hacks. Crocker's another man who has done nothing to deserve these accusations except serve his country honorably for decades, under Democratic and Republican administrations, and risk his life in one shit hole after another.

I realize you feel it's important to toss some mud on Petraeus and Crocker as a prophylactic against any September report that isn't sufficiently negative for your purposes, but have you considered the precedent you and your lefty pals are setting by treating career diplomats and military officers as if they were partisan elected officials?

Think beyond September for a moment. You actually have some influence here, and you are using it to push us a tiny bit further down the slippery slope toward Latin American-style politicization of our officer corps and diplomatic corps. Is it worth it?

Posted by Fred | August 30, 2007 1:17 AM

have you considered the precedent you and your lefty pals are setting by treating career diplomats and military officers as if they were partisan elected officials?

Take a look at how your side treated distinguished public servants like Richard Clarke once they had the temerity to suggest that the Bush Administration screwed things up, and then tell me if you think you still have standing to raise this sort of complaint. And let's not forget Joe Wilson, dubbed an American hero by Bush's father, and now officially the lyingest liar of all time according to wingnut cant.

You actually have some influence here, and you are using it to push us a tiny bit further down the slippery slope toward Latin American-style politicization of our officer corps and diplomatic corps.

Truly amazing. The Bush Administration spends four years of a war hiding behind the troops, using the armed forces as a partisan weapon to support their agenda, and suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the administration's handling of Iraq is "second-guessing our troops in the field." But on Planet Fred, it's bloggers like Matt Yglesias who are at fault for politicizing the military's role. Just unbelievable.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 2:22 AM

Steve, I'm pretty sure that was a fake Fred. It read too much like parody to be real.

Posted by Zephyrus | August 30, 2007 2:39 AM

How predictable was it that yglesias would only mention this political agreement in iraqi parliment once he had found an angle to try and discredit it?

he probably wont mention motada al'sadr's suspension of mahdi army operations(remember, this time piece cites the influence of the mahdi army as a large reason the deal is supposedly 'no deal') until there is some incident with fighters linked to the mahdi army, at which point yglesias will note how this proves sadr isnt really in control so his statement doesnt really mean anything(fake!)

Yglesias is simply a surge progress denialist.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | August 30, 2007 3:19 AM

Steve,

Richard Clarke was retired from government service when he became part of a political dispute centering on his 9/11 commission testimony.

Similarly, Joe Wilson was retired from the State Department when he volunteered to go to Niger, and he effectively politicized himself when, upon his return, he attacked the administration in an NY Times op/ed.

Neither situation is analogous to the political attacks on an American diplomat and an American military officer, both currently serving.

Also, since you brought it up: Joe Wilson isn't a liar "according to wingnut cant"; he's a liar according to the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

Posted by Fred | August 30, 2007 3:44 AM

Chris Ford:

The Jew emphasis gives lefties an excuse to ignore some good points you make. Also, the writer's name is Robert Tracinski. And here is the link to his excellent essay, from which you quoted: The Left Loses The Vietnam War

Posted by Fred | August 30, 2007 4:06 AM

"And he won't do it without a vote. And Bush won't get a majority of votes on that."

Bush doesn't need a vote - in his view. He has the Authorization of Force legislation which authorizes him to attack ANY "terrorists" and ANY "terrorist nation" which supports "terrorists."

And that is precisely why he is going to declare Iran's IRGC a "terrorist organization."

That is also why he is arguing that Iran is attacking US forces in Iraq. This he can call "terrorism" - and the Democrats in Congress won't say "boo" about that because the Repubs will accuse them of allowing Iran to kill US troops.

And if another "9/11 terrorist incident" occurs - here OR in Iraq - which kills any significant number of US citizens OR troops and which can be laid at the feet of Iran, he WILL be allowed to start the war.

And if Israel starts it for him, and the Iranians retaliate against the US in Iraq OR Israel, he still gets his war.

There's no stopping it now. It's all laid out. When Cheney said some time ago, "That won't stop us", he meant it - and now we know why.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 30, 2007 5:00 AM

Perhaps Petraeus and Crocker will, in fact, say that the Iraqi political progress is a sham, in which case Matt will owe them an apology and Fred will be vindicated. Otherwise, not so much.

Fred is obviously adopting nothing more than the standard Republican tactic of hiding behind the closest person in uniform. Oh no, if you suggest Petraeus might not deliver his opinions straight down the middle, you're damaging the Republic! Enough of this crap already.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 11:09 AM

That's the best response you could come up with, Steve?

Crocker joined the State Department in 1971; Petraeus graduated West Point in 1974. Both have had 30 year+ public service careers for Senate staffers to examine for any examples of bias or dishonesty; no such questions were raised at their confirmation hearings a few months ago. Neither man deserves a presumption of political hackery at this point, and you know it. You probably also know that what Matt & friends are doing sets an awful precedent.

Posted by Fred | August 30, 2007 1:20 PM

I think what's important to remember is that neither General Petraeus nor Ambassador Crocker will be seen by mature, adult citizens able to think for themselves as delivering gospel truths.

The right wing authority fixation is visible every time questions for the here and now are blown off with 'wait until Petraeus gives his report'.

Petraeus' and Crockers' views will be evidence, and that's all, evidence which will be weighed against other available evidence.

So, what I would encourage us to insult, demean, and deride is the attitude that we should give up our brains and rely upon a military report savior to tell us the exclusively true vision of what is happening in Iraq.

What appears to be well documented and reliable evidence and argument presented by Petraeus should be examined and considered.

What seems ill-documented or marked by weak arguments should be rejected.

Is there anything wrong with such a stance by citizens?

Posted by El Cid | August 30, 2007 1:41 PM