Bennett and Petraeus

I believe I earned my reputation as a "reasonable liberal" defending Bill Bennett against some bogus charges of racism, but Dave Weigel reporting from the values voter summit, adequately demonstrates that Bennett definitely is a buffoon:

8:53: "We were at war with, let us say it, Islamic fascism." He's brave enough to say things the president says!

8:54: Bennett gives praise to our modern hero: "Not Leonidas of the 300 Spartans, but Petraeus of the 300 million Americans. Let us praise Him, Point him out to your children and say 'There goes a nobel man.' Perhaps even a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. One advantage of giving David Petraeus the Nobel Peace Prize is that he has actually brought peace. And we honor peacemakers.

Let us praise him?

Comments

sounds sloshed, actually.
the combination of misplaced grandiosity and misremembered quotations suggests a little tippling with breakfast.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 20, 2007 4:05 PM

Speaking of being responsible, how's Mickey Kaus coming with that goat-blowing denial? Still stonewalling?

Posted by lambert strether | October 20, 2007 4:21 PM

Let us praise him?

Petraeus eleison...

Posted by Peter Bautista | October 20, 2007 4:31 PM

Damn, I hope the 300 million Americans are not going to end up like those 300 Spartans.

Posted by abb1 | October 20, 2007 4:37 PM

I forgot old Bill was still around. After the Vegas 7 figure poker machine losses and the dominatrix and all. I guess you just can't ever lose your values trademark, unless you suck a real cock, and get caught..

Posted by rapier | October 20, 2007 5:12 PM

You don't need to praise Petraeus, Matt, but it would be swell of you to apologize to him for implying he was a liar and a political hack. The progress he is achieving in stabilizing Iraq now is almost to the point where even you and other members of the 'reality-based' community will have to acknowledge it.

Posted by Juan | October 20, 2007 5:39 PM

I did not know that they give Nobel Prize for having intentions to acquire knowledge to engage in peace related program activities?

Posted by gregor | October 20, 2007 5:58 PM

Seriously, what the fuck has happened to our country in the last 5 years?

Posted by DRR | October 20, 2007 6:13 PM

but it would be swell of you to apologize to him for implying he was a liar and a political hack

Truth of the assertion is the only airtight defense against libel.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | October 20, 2007 6:15 PM

One advantage of giving David Petraeus the Nobel Peace Prize is that he has actually brought peace.

War is peace, I suppose.

Posted by Dan | October 20, 2007 6:24 PM

I believe I earned my reputation as a "reasonable liberal" defending Bill Bennett against some bogus charges of racism

Why'd you do that? Lose a bet?

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 20, 2007 6:26 PM

Equally interesting is the revelation that Bennett is quoting C.S. Lewis ridiculously out of context to defend Bushian authoritarianism. (For some reason, he doesn't quote Lewis' "The greatest of all public dangers is the Committee of Public Safety.")

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 20, 2007 7:25 PM

You don't need to praise Petraeus, Matt, but it would be swell of you to apologize to him for implying he was a liar and a political hack. The progress he is achieving in stabilizing Iraq now is almost to the point where even you and other members of the 'reality-based' community will have to acknowledge it.

Petraeus was saying all year that Iraq violence was going down, when it wasn't.

The fact that violence went down in September doesn't make Petraeus any less of a political hack for falsely claiming that violence was going down before. (And it of course calls into question whether this drop in violence is attributable to the surge at all.)

Posted by M.A. | October 20, 2007 8:02 PM

I thought Sparta was the Soviet Union and Athens was the West? Now people like Bennett praise U.S. military leaders by comparing them to the authoritarian, militaristic Spartans? 300 is a fitting movie for him to gush over: violence porn in Persia enacted by a small group of macho, suicidal idiots who, if memory serves, ...lose.

Posted by jim | October 20, 2007 8:22 PM

Juan fantasizes thusly:

"The progress he is achieving in stabilizing Iraq now is almost to the point where even you and other members of the 'reality-based' community will have to acknowledge it."

And your evidence of this "progress" is...what?

Right. Thought so. A large quantity of mescaline.

BTW, Jim, not only did they lose, but according to the movie, they lost to a bunch of gay guys...

Maybe THAT'S why the Republicans like that movie...they identify with the Persians...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 9:45 PM

"And your evidence of this "progress" is...what?"

Oh, take your pick:

Washington Times, October 19, 2007: "Extremist attacks on U.S. troops have dropped from 256 in August to 153 in September and 36 so far this month, according to the Defense Department."

Washington Post, October 2, 2007: "U.S. and Civilian Deaths Decrease Sharply in Iraq".

Washington Post, October 14, 2007: "Better Numbers: The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute."

Washington Post, October 15, 2007: "Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled"

New York Times, October 16, 2007: "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch"


Now why don't you go make yourself useful and cart away someone's obsolete computer?

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 2:09 AM

I see - spin articles from the classic Administration water carriers at WaPo and the NYT are supposed to prove something?

Try this quote from the WaPo if you like:

"the WaPo reporting that "EFP attacks since spring 2007 had increased from about one per week to roughly one every other day..." [See below]

We've already been over all that nonsense in earlier threads here and elsewhere. The consensus view is that it's all bullshit. To the degree that certain stats seem promising, it's probably due to a combination of sectarian cleansing having effectively been completed in various areas such as Baghdad, and/or re-alignment of the factions vis-a-vis each other or the occupation.

Recent reports - such as this one:

It's the resistance, stupid by Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ17Ak03.html

indicate that a number of Sunni insurgents are actually aligning with certain Shia militias to concentrate on attacking US forces rather than each other. Apparently they've decided that the presence of US forces is preventing them from directly engaging each other effectively.

While this was the purpose of the "surge", the practical effect appears to be to have the US forces the prime target. Expectations are that US casualties will spike in the near term.

Meanwhile, check this article out for what is really going on:

US buys 'concerned citizens' in Iraq, but at what price?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071016/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestuscitizens_071016191104

Money quote direct from General Lynch:

"Right now I've got 34 concerned citizen groups under contract and that is costing me 7.5 million dollars every 60-90 days," Lynch tells AFP, adding that 25 groups are Sunni, nine Shiite.

Interesting report I just found says the following:

"§1. Already four years ago (September 2003) Lt. Gen. Richard Cody, the Army’s operations chief, believed that IEDs not only threatened soldiers in Iraq, but also posed a strategic risk to U.S. ambitions in the region, and predicted current situation (namely "the IED problem" has got "out of control") adding: "We’ve got to stop the bleeding."

§2. In a TIME magazine EFP report just in Sgt. Jason Fagan, 28, a former Arkansas deputy sheriff who rode as truck commander riding shotgun leaks that "Every EFP that goes off kills something like two-point-five soldiers." When this is added to the WaPo reporting that "EFP attacks since spring 2007 had increased from about one per week to roughly one every other day (yielding some 450 U.S. dead/year + the wounded and the deaf from the some 180+ EFPs only), so that Jason's comment "That's the only thing I'm really afraid of out here" is well backed.

§3. When the Pentagon admits hitherto some 81,000 IEDs (of which some 25,000 this year), there are officially some 100 "incoming" IEDs and/or EFPs against the occupation forces daily, having caused some two-thirds of the American combat deaths in Iraq (note also that according to WaPo "Some analysts believe that 20 percent or more of all IEDs have never reported", and that no Army in withdrawal has ever published true figures so that the actual IED figure is certainly 100,000+). By early summer 2007, the underbelly IED (i.e. not the EFP mentioned above) was killing more American troops than all other combined.

§4. What we find particularly interesting in this is that the U.S. army admittance "We're bleeding..." is dated to the early fall of 2003 when the IED attacks had reached 100 a month. The current figures of some 100 attacks a day, against invisible enemy, with no countermeasure available, four years straight and 30 times worse than "bleeding", i.e. wounded, i.e. useless in the battlefield.

This is the truth about the U.S. Expeditionary Forces position and casualties in Iraq."

So, if you want to hallucinate that things are getting better, be my guest.

I guess we can expect the troops home any day now then, right?

Right.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 21, 2007 4:52 AM

"I see - spin articles from the classic Administration water carriers at WaPo and the NYT..."

I'm sorry, but when you start a comment by claiming that the WaPo and the NY Times, which endorsed Bush's opponents in both elections, are "water carriers" for the Bush Administration, it's hard to take anything else you write seriously.

I know it pains you to hear any positive news from Iraq, but the numbers show a positive trend, regardless of your rantings.

These are the estimates of Iraqi casualties for August, September, and the first 20 days of October, respectively:

August 2007: 1598

September, 2007: 752

First 20 days of October, 2007: 376

These are the U.S. casualties for August, September, and the first 20 days of October, respectively:

August, 2007: 84

September, 2007: 65

First 20 days of October, 2007: 28

"I guess we can expect the troops home any day now then, right?"

Who's arguing that? We'll have troops in Iraq for years to come, though if casualties keep declining at this rate, Iraq will recede as a political issue, as Afghanistan largely has.

As an anecdotal example of this, I was accosted today on my way out of Zabars in New York's ultra-liberal Upper West Side by a 60-ish yenta handing out flyers urging New Yorkers to "protest the war". She muttered half to herself about how apathetic everyone was, since few people paid any attention to her. I asked her which war she was protesting, and she asked me rhetorically, as if I were an idiot, "Which war are we in right now?". When I responded that we were fighting one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, she snapped at me, exasperated: "Iraq! We have to stop the killing...". Out of curiosity, I asked her what she thought of the war in Afghanistan, and whether she would be protesting that one two. She neither expressed support for the effort in Afghanistan nor mustered any indignation about it; she just waved me off, as though the question were somehow passé.

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 5:44 AM

These are the U.S. casualties for August, September, and the first 20 days of October, respectively

Casualty rates go up and casualty rates go down, you don't prove anything with 2.5 months worth of figures. You can find a doaen points over the last 4 years when casualty rates went down over the course of 3 months, it still hasn't changed the long-term up trend.

We'll have troops in Iraq for years to come

Why? What are our goals? There is no evidence of any Iraqi political progress (in fact article after article from the last 3 months suggests that they are going backwards) and very little hope that there will ever be any while we are there. We're spending $2bil a week for this?

Is it worth $6 per American per week to support whatever nebulous goals (no we're not keeping "them" from "following us home", that's just effing stupid, so don't even start with that; there's just as much chance we will get attacked by terrorists while we stay in Iraq as there is if we leave, we're not doing anything in Iraq that would prevent a group like the 9/11 hi-jackers, none Iraqi by the way, from coming here) we're trying to accomplish in Iraq?

The US budget is in deficit and has been for the entire Bush administration. Do you also support the tax increases necessary to continue paying for this fiasco?

Posted by Shalimar | October 21, 2007 8:30 AM

First of all, in previous years the number of deaths related to the war has risen and fell with the seasons. Praising Bush and the general at this point in the war for a small, probably temporary fall in deaths after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the flight of around 3 million Iraqis from the country (including members of the Iraqi Parliament) is faint praise indeed. After the Serbian militias invaded Srbrenica and successfully cleansed the area - one of the last corners of Bosnian Muslims in Serbian-dominated areas in Bosnia - deaths went down for a time in Bosnia. Do we praise Clinton's inaction at that moment for the downturn in violence? The success of de facto ethnic cleansing/purification policies has much to do with a drop in the rate of violence as of late because more and more areas are becoming homogeneous. If you're proud of that, you're sick.

Posted by Reality Man | October 21, 2007 8:34 AM

Yes, let us Praise Him.

As the Turks lose 16 more troops to Kurds and the whole situation (General Wonderful's responsibility) careens out of control along the Turkish/Kurdish border.

What a success it will be when the Syrians and Saudis invade!

Posted by twit | October 21, 2007 8:49 AM

Your defense of Bennett was ludicrous and offensive.

It was your lowest moment to date.

Posted by Armando | October 21, 2007 9:13 AM

The US casualties have been relatively low all along and even lower this October. The US casualties could disappear completely when they terrorize the population sufficiently or if resort to just aerial bombings. But of course it doesn't make the war, occupation and everything else that is going on there and what Gen. Petraeus represents any less wrong.

Posted by abb1 | October 21, 2007 9:35 AM

Bennett's comments were unambiguously racist. It takes a special kind of creep to defend them.

Posted by Jason C. | October 21, 2007 10:36 AM

“Buffoon” doesn’t come close to capturing his essence. What a stupid, pandering ass.

These clowns must believe if they keep repeating it, it must be true, or it will become true.

Like Kristol, a preening, effeminate, smug war criminal. Hand them all over to an international tribunal, let them have fair trials, and if convicted, let them meet their fate.

I wonder how “pro capital punishment” these fucking fascists would be then.

Posted by Larry | October 21, 2007 11:36 AM

let us praise him?

good one, matt. very droll :)

Posted by zafar | October 21, 2007 12:31 PM

That quip didn't really succeed. The 300 of Leonidas were warriors - but the vast majority of Petreus' 300 are civilians. And many of them, let us not forget, are not crazy about the war.

Its great how the Republicans are hiding behind Petreus now. Of course, the generals who challenge Bush's policy are overstepping their bounds, or maybe they are doing so for careerist reasons. But the generals who essentially become policy spokesman - which is Petreus - are noble men. Leave your silly intellectual standards at the door, apparently.

And the whole "lets just say it" was pretentious. There is no political risk in saying Islamic Fascism. Please. There is political risk in saying American security interests are not served by creating big, expandable blanket with which to define our enemies. Plus we already have a perfectly good term to describe it - global jihadism.(Since jihadism doesn't have the historical menace that Fascism has, its no good I guess)

Posted by Neal Murray | October 21, 2007 12:50 PM

"Hand them all over to an international tribunal, let them have fair trials, and if convicted, let them meet their fate."

Questions:
1) Who decides the "them all" part?
2) What "international tribunal?"
3) What "fate?"

Answers:
1) Larry
2) Larry, his brothers Darryl and Darryl, and Rage Against the Machine (Performing their cover of "We Are the World" -- if they're available).
3) The fate of all "clowns" per L, D, D, and Rage (if available).

Posted by tao9 | October 21, 2007 1:23 PM

"First of all, in previous years the number of deaths related to the war has risen and fell with the seasons."

What has usually happened during Ramadan?

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 2:29 PM

Is it just that the very name "Petraeus" sounds like that of some general from the days of Imperial Rome that we're getting all these calls to hail the conquering soon-to-be hero?

I mean, it's not like he's actually DONE anything to distinguishe himself from any of the other generals in Commander Bunnypants' glorious adventure in Mesopotamia.

Then again, maybe it's the creeping (and creepy) influence of Victor David Hanson and his lust for gladiator movies.

Posted by Rob_in_Hawaii | October 21, 2007 2:58 PM

"sounds sloshed, actually."

Agreed. I think someone knocked back some sacramental wine before having to deal with the fundies. I can just see Tony Perkins politely whisking Bill offstage as Bill quips:

"Christians! I don't need no fucking Christians! Where do you freaks keep the goddamn slots in this fucking casino....."

Posted by Rihilism | October 21, 2007 4:16 PM

Utah's Lawless Fringe
Stories of True Crime
(Favorite Readings from the Utah Historical Quarterly)
STANFORD J. LAYTON, EDITOR
Paperback. 264 Pages. / 1-56085-148-1 / $18.95

It was Sunday and worship service was in progress. One of the settlers who was not attending service eyed four known outlaws passing near town. He raced to church to spread the alarm, and parishioners leaped up, grabbed their guns, and galloped off in pursuit, joined by some neighboring cattlemen. Before it was over, one of the posse was dead.
So it went on the outskirts of Utah Territory. In this case it was the little town of Bluff where the Mormon bishop served for some ten years as de facto sheriff and his congregation as deputies. As elsewhere, law and order developed organically rather than by legislation.

In this anthology several aspects of the process are considered, including one of the worst manifestations of citizen action: vigilantism. Territorial Utah witnessed more lynchings than legal executions. Another citizen trait was an unexpected indifference to vice. In 1908 Salt Lake City had 148 registered prostitutes overseen by a madam who was recruited for the position by the mayor and city council. During Prohibition one of the largest distilleries in the West operated in a Salt Lake warehouse.

What is to be learned from this? The contributors to these fourteen articles leave moral considerations to the reader's contemplation, while providing surprises along the way in an extremely engaging—dare we say arresting—read.

Stanford J. Layton (Ph.D., University of Utah), is managing editor of the Utah Historical Quarterly and an adjunct professor of history at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. He is the author of To No Privileged Class: The Rationalization of Homesteading and Rural Life in the Early 20th Century American West. He has contributed to several anthologies, including Worth Their Salt: Notable but Often Unnoted Women of Utah and the Utah History Encyclopedia.

Posted by Garuda | October 21, 2007 5:15 PM

Here's the reality for TODAY, Juan:

"At least 77 Iraqis were killed or found dead and 83 more were wounded in the latest violence. Most of the casualties occurred during a U.S. raid in Sadr City. During incidents at the Turkish border, another 45 people were killed and 24 more were wounded. No Coalition troops were reported killed in Iraq.

A major incident occurred in the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. A U.S. forces raid targeting a suspect believed to lead a kidnapping cell resulted in the deaths of dozens of people. U.S. authorities said a total of 49 gunmen were killed during the raid and subsequent air strikes. Police and hospital spokespeople reported that as many as 13 civilians were killed and 69 more were injured. Two toddlers were among the dead."

Here's the reality YESTERDAY, Juan:

At least 24 Iraqis were killed or found dead and 32 more were wounded in the latest violence. A wanted serial killer was arrested al-Bu Owan. Also, the DOD reported that a Marine was killed yesterday in Baghdad, while an MND-B soldier was killed and eight others were wounded on Thursday.

That's over a hundred Iraqis killed in two days. At that rate, there will be 1,500 killed this month alone.

Here's Friday's count:

Friday: 2 GIs, 22 Iraqis Killed; 22 Iraqis Wounded
Updated at 11:15 p.m. EDT, Oct. 19, 2007

At least 22 Iraqis were killed and 22 were wounded during violence that was extremely light — even for the Friday prayer day when few reporters are working. Also, two American servicemembers died in separate incidents.

Note that: 22 people killed and 22 wounded in "violence that was extremely light". I supposed you'll claim that as a success, right?

Here's Thursday:

In what may be more unwarranted attacks on civilians by foreign security personnel, three people were wounded during an incident in Kirkuk and five more in a separate event in Baghdad that involved U.S. troops. Overall, 39 Iraqis were killed and 58 more were wounded in attacks throughout Iraq. An explosion killed one Task Force Lightning soldier and wounded three more yesterday in Salah ad Din province.

I don't know where you get your ridiculous body counts, but they're way off the mark. Not to mention that all REPORTED body counts are way off the mark on the total, as the Lancet study proved.

For every body reported in the press, there are probably two or three or more that go unreported.

Your "positive news" is bullshit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 21, 2007 7:43 PM

Not even bothering to cite sources, Richard Steven Hack? You can keep seething impotently, but the "Iraq-is-a-lost-cause" meme is already being phased-out in the mainstream media, in light of the "remarkable success of recent months", to use David Ignatius's words. He's already writing about the Next Challenge in Iraq.

Posted by Juan | October 21, 2007 7:58 PM

Go to Antiwar.com, look up the articles, the links to the sources are right there.

Look, stupid, since when has the MSM been right about Iraq? There was never a "lost cause" meme in the MSM, and what the MSM is reporting is mostly spin from, yes, the water carriers in the WaPo and NYT. The Michael O'Hanlons and that lot whose numbers were trashed regularly right up to Petraeus Congressional testimony and afterward, not to mention Petraeus own numbers which were proven bogus.

And now you think you can just blithely refer to that crap as FACT?

Refute the numbers I cited, or buzz off. Your "happy news" is bullshit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 22, 2007 2:55 AM

May I suggest that the question of whether casualties are currently dropping in Iraq is a hell of a lot less important in appraising our chances of success than the rather obvious question of whether those Sunni Sheikhs that we're currently arming to the teeth (in return for turning on al-Qaeda, which was providing them little military assistance) will turn on the Shiite government -- or vice versa -- the moment we (mostly) go home? In that connection, the recent Washington Post article on the near-total Iraqi lack of interest in political unity at this point (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701448_pf.html ) is a lot more relevant than the question of whether casualties are currently going up or going down. (Note particularly the last two paragraphs.)

And, of course, consider that the evidence is now overwhelming that the Iraqi Sunnis won't tolerate any large al-Qaeda presence in Iraq whether we stay there or not, although that's supposedly one of our main reasons for staying (or it is at the moment, anyway). The one thing that could change this is if the Sunnis end up re-accepting al-Qaeda after all as emergency allies against the Shiites -- but in that case, the AQ fighters will be too busy either shooting at the Shiites or running for their lives to focus much on attacking America. (Note that recent ABC poll: fully 92% of Iraqi Sunnis said that they regard it as "justified" for al-Qaeda fighters to shoot at US troops there -- but once the US pulls out, 96% of the Sunnis want all foreign al-Qaeda fighters to get lost. As for the Shiites, half of them said that it's justifiable for Iraqi insurgents to attack US troops.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 22, 2007 5:38 AM