100 Years

Moira Whelan has a good rundown of the whole question of where the "100 years" talking point came from, and is it really unfair to attribute a desire for an indefinite military presence in Iraq to John McCain just because he kept emphasizing his desire for an indefinite military presence in Iraq before deciding it was politically inconvenient to be attacked for it.

One further point to ad is that McCain's apparent belief that our military bases elsewhere in the Persian Gulf are entirely unproblematic seems to reflect a limited comprehension of the overall situation. After all, even our military presence in Saudi Arabia hasn't been casualty-free and it's extremely likely that we wouldn't be able to keep all of the Gulf bases we currently have were the region more democratic. At the moment, the extraordinary weakness of the Iraqi state and the general lack of security have tended to obscure the basic reality of how unpopular are presence there is.

Comments

Moira Whelan has a good rundown of the whole question of where the "100 years" talking point came from

Let's see, the Democrats are lying, they know they are lying, and they don't care that they are lying. Virtually every non-partisan fact checker (including, as noted in the linked post, Factcheck.org) has said that the Democrats are lying about the issue, and Democrats don't care.

Democrats = liars. Simple as that.

But that's not a surprise, it is the only way Democrats can ever win elections, because Democrats know that McCain is simply more popular than the Democrats' candidates. So the Democrats lie.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2008 5:42 PM

Now we've created a reason to be there: destabilizing the whole regions beckons US military domination. We took the hub out from the spokes and to there needs to be a force there capable of preventing the spokes from falling in on each other. I don't want us to be there forever. Most Americans probably feel the same way. But if we leave, I worry that the remaining stability of the region departs as well.

Posted by BCM | April 30, 2008 5:59 PM

Yep, Al. Democrats lie. They've got these new, very clever ways to lie by showing people saying things in their own words, on video.

He's a terrible candidate. Can't stay on message. Can't keep a consistent position on anything.

Matt-

I keep waiting for someone to say "Germany? Japan? Yeah. WTF is up with that anyway? We can't be worried about the East Germans anymore. Is it the Poles? The Ukranians?"

Posted by jayackroyd | April 30, 2008 6:00 PM

Why do you think the Democrats are lying, Al? Because they didn't include his proviso that we should only stay there if it's a parliamentary democracy?

Frankly, that makes his view appear even more ludicrous.

Posted by Anonymous | April 30, 2008 6:01 PM

If you going to put in khobar towers as an argument, I'll put in a west berlin disco - or how about an oklahoma city federal building?

it's extremely likely that we wouldn't be able to keep all of the Gulf bases we currently have were the region more democratic

Maybe. But I would counter with the fact there were frequent, visible and internationally covered anti-american protests around yongsan throughout the 70 & 80's under a 'US puppet' and definitely non-democratic ROK regime. For the last two decades the properly elected regime has caused little change in these protests (they are somewhat smaller and less frequent), but they were still going on as a late as 2005.

However, the amount of constenation among local pols now that we are officially leaving yongon is considerable and was so vigorously protested that IIRC we have delayed the redeployment a few times.

Posted by Kolohe | April 30, 2008 6:04 PM

BCM: "But if we leave, I worry that the remaining stability of the region departs as well."

You want to specify how that is likely to happen? And while you're at it, how the continued presence is in fact preventing it from happening?

Or, as the Reverend said in "Blazing Saddles", are you just jerking off, ie, concern trolling? I give you the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

Want to explain how an attack on Iran is going to make that better? Because that IS in the cards in the next three to six months, and even if it isn't, McCain will do it within the first six months of his administration, Clinton would do it in the first year, if not sooner, and Obama may well do it in the first year or two.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 6:06 PM

Al, your getting lazy in these twilight days of your sophistry. Simply asserting something -- over and over again -- does not make it true. As a well-trained rhetoritician and dissembler, you ought to know how ineffective your first post here was. Really, we expect better of you.

When McCain says he wants to stay in Iraq for a Korea/Panama, multiple-decades-long commitment, how precisely is it a lie to point this out? Do explain.

Also, Matt, it's "our" in the last line.

Posted by Rev. Samuel Ely | April 30, 2008 6:10 PM

"Really, we expect better of you."

I don't. Al's been like this for months, if not years. So have the rest of the right wing freaks here.

Where's Powell been? He repeats the exact same crap almost word for word daily here. In fact, the quote from Fred Kagan in the post Matt made about Kagan and the definition of Iraq "success" the other day read so much like Powell's posts I thought Powell must be Kagan in drag. It was almost word for word the neocon talking point.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 6:18 PM

I am finding myself agreeing more and more with Mr. Hack. Strange times.

Posted by Rev. Samuel Ely | April 30, 2008 6:38 PM

"You want to specify how that is likely to happen? And while you're at it, how the continued presence is in fact preventing it from happening?"

The Shia in Iraq decide that they are tired of sharing power with the Sunni. There's a power grab and Iraq's Sunni neighbors are now very worried that they might be living next door to a Shia state that's an extension of Iran. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait decide to dramatically raise their stake in Iraq, as does Iran, for it's own benefit. Now you have a Sunni-Shia showdown in the focal point of the Middle East.

US troops in Iraq reasonably assure Sunni states that the Shia won't dominate. Certainly there are detriments to US presence inside Iraq today, but my worry is wider than Iraq, it's regional. So when Iraqis say 'OMG, they are causing all these problems' I don't frankly care, and neither do the Saudi's, Kuwaitis, or Jordanians because they know that US troop presence there is the only thing between a civil war and a regional war -- perhaps through proxy.

Posted by BCM | April 30, 2008 7:01 PM

"even our military presence in Saudi Arabia hasn't been casualty-free"

That's putting it mildly. Our casualties due to our military presence in Saudi Arabia is 3,000+ dead. Bin Laden attacked us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. You can read all about it in Christian Alfonsi's "Circle in the Sand," almost as good as, what's the title? oh yeah, "Heads in the Sand."

Posted by Alan Vanneman | April 30, 2008 7:20 PM

Whelan's "rundown" is a joke. Since she can't actually defend the DNC's lies about what McCain said, she changes the subject. The issue isn't the merits of McCain's evaluation of the prospects for peace in Iraq, but what his "100 years" comment was referring to. And no honest reporter could seriously believe McCain was calling for a century of warfare. The Democrats are just lying. As Annenberg put it:

The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

It's one thing to argue, as Dean does, that McCain's position is a recipe for continued violence and bloodshed, whatever his stated intent. But it is another thing to misrepresent that intent. The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 7:38 PM

First of all, it's absurd to label a hundred-year occupation of an unwilling country and restive populace "peace-time" conditions.

Secondly, it's amusing in the extreme to find that the Right has suddenly developed a case of epistemological delicacy when it comes to truth-claims.

Posted by Ben Cronin | April 30, 2008 8:05 PM

The issue isn't the merits of McCain's evaluation of the prospects for peace in Iraq, but what his "100 years" comment was referring to. And no honest reporter could seriously believe McCain was calling for a century of warfare. The Democrats are just lying.

Mixner:
When did you ever become concerned by the truth? Republicans have huge problems with truthiness, especially when talking about Democrats. Why should McCain be cut any breaks? He shouldn't. For you to defend him is just stupid. Of course he wants another 100 years of war if that is what it takes to secure Iraq(in his mind). I forgot, McCain is allowed to flip-flop like a fish out of water, yet John Kerry gets unmercifully hammered on it. Face it, McBush is just as stupid as Bush so one can conflate anything he talks about. Besides, he'll change his mind next week anyway.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 30, 2008 8:07 PM

Exactly which questioner or set of questioners was/were wondering how long the U.S. military presence in Iraq might endure once it became a peaceful and/or DMZ separated wonderland which is predicted by absolutely no one at the moment?

Does McCain have other important public declarations which are really, really, really he promises in context about fantasy topics no one is asking, such as how long he envisions our American base in the asteroid belt will continue to manufacture beautiful angel robots out of the priceless metals found there?

How about if McCain states publicly in an interview that [as long as we suddenly invent a way to turn CO2 into harmless chocolates] then he thinks we need to stop every program of CO2 emission control!

And then after he says it several times, his admirers can whine "buh buh buh he said only if we could turn all CO2 into harmless chocolate drops so the mean mean Democrats are quoting him out of context!"

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 8:11 PM

I love the idea that Al and Mixner think Democrats are lying about the "100 years" since the prima facie sense of his words is worse than the Democratic interpretation. He'll stay if we're not taking casualties. But why stay in Iraq if we're not taking casualties? What McCain said is worse than a contradiction: there's no close analysis of his words that makes any sense. What Republicans have had to do is create an interpretation of his words and assert that since the Democratic version is different that the Democrats are lying. Well, no. The only thing that makes sense of McCain's words is that he wants to stay in Iraq for however long he wants.

And McCain has explicitly rejected a Korea-style tenure for the troops. Who's lying, chums? You are.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 30, 2008 8:54 PM

(back from changing the cat litter)

I wanted to mention the obvious reason why McCain's words don't make sense: he's getting senile. We're being asked to vote for an after-the-stroke Wilson. Except McCain's not going to recover. He says stuff ad hoc that doesn't make sense and his handlers run around, like Al and Mixner, explaining it away. Well, crap. He's the standard bearer and so you've got to defend him at all cost because you're party hacks, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 30, 2008 9:04 PM

Democrat Demagoguing 101:

1. Locate clip where your political opponent says he wants X.

2. Create attack ad falsely asserting that your political opponent says he wants Y.

3. Defend your lie by asserting that X is impossible.

4. If challenged further, change the subject, attack your challenger's motives, ask irrelevant questions, or engage in other whatever other smokescreen tactics you can think of to try and distract attention from the fact that you're a big fat liar.

Posted by Mixner | April 30, 2008 9:21 PM

I support letting the Chinese Government invade & occupy the United States! (As long as by "Chinese Government" we mean soft, gentle, cooling summer breezes and by "invade & occupy" we mean "drift in as weather permits".)

Waaaaah!!!

All my enemies are saying I said that the Chinese Government should invade & occupy the United States when that's clearly not what I meant in context!!!

Waaaaah!!!

Those mean Democrats are being bullies again like they always are to us mild, soft, ever truthful Republicans!

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 9:26 PM

3. Defend your lie by asserting that X is impossible.

Interesting. Who did this?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 30, 2008 9:28 PM

I like how suddenly Mixner has become the Marquess of freaking Queensbury as far as politics is concerned; Republicans have become such wilting violets lately, the which I missed during all the Rev. Wright/Swiftboat/Clinton "scandals" that, when not advocating for wars of aggression, they have embroiled the country. Extra points for not actually addressing any of the criticism raised (like, what does John McCain mean when he says we might need to stay in Iraq for one hundred years?).

At least Al is more artful.

Posted by Rev. Ely | April 30, 2008 9:29 PM

How exactly has "the general lack of security" "tended to obscure the basic reality of how unpopular are presence there is," anyway? I would think that the fact that people are still shooting at us would kind of give that away. Or am I being naive?

Posted by mwg | April 30, 2008 9:34 PM

Wow. I have no idea why Republicans get so crazy whenever anyone points out McCain's statements, since it's only the stated policy of the Republican President and Republicans in general. We're staying forever as long as Republicans have anything to say about it. Do they think as long as we don't point out that this is the policy, then no one will notice we're still in Iraq and we're staying indefinitely?

But, it's extremely likely that we wouldn't be able to keep all of the Gulf bases we currently have were the region more democratic does, in fact, forget that we are there to enforce democracy. A Republican might say that, were the region to become more democratic, then we wouldn't need to be there, and we would withdraw of our own accord. However long that may take.

Posted by Kiril | April 30, 2008 10:50 PM

Do they think as long as we don't point out that this is the policy, then no one will notice we're still in Iraq and we're staying indefinitely?

Yes. Yes they do. And pointing that out makes you an America-hating pro-jihadist traitor. Mainly because you mentioned an idea that could possibly be interpreted as discussing a "timeline" or "timetable" for the extent of U.S. occupation of Iraq, which means that you hate the troops and Want Us To Lose.

Posted by El Cid | April 30, 2008 10:59 PM

BCM: "The Shia in Iraq decide that they are tired of sharing power with the Sunni. There's a power grab and Iraq's Sunni neighbors are now very worried that they might be living next door to a Shia state that's an extension of Iran. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait decide to dramatically raise their stake in Iraq, as does Iran, for it's own benefit. Now you have a Sunni-Shia showdown in the focal point of the Middle East.

US troops in Iraq reasonably assure Sunni states that the Shia won't dominate."

WHAT? Where the hell have you been for the last, oh, three frickin' YEARS?

The Shia DO dominate in Iraq. Why the hell do you think the Sunni parties quit the government? Why the hell do you think the "Awakening" groups have formed? Because they couldn't fight the Shia and the US at the same time. That's the ONLY thing the US is doing at the moment - slowing down the Sunni attempt to retake the government! Do you want the US to remain in Iraq for 100 years like McCain in order to somehow "insure" that that posture continues? It's not feasible to do that.

You ALREADY have a Sunni-Shia showdown in Iraq. The question is HOW does it spread BEYOND Iraq? And you can't establish that whatsoever.

More importantly, you CANNOT establish that the presence of the US military is doing ANYTHING to prevent it from worsening in Iraq NOW and in the future.

Right now, the most important man in Iraq is an Iranian general who actually snuck into the Green Zone at one point to get Maliki appointed! And you think Iran isn't already in charge?

The only thing that hasn't happened here is that Iran wants a reasonably stable Iraq - and therefore hasn't unleashed both the ISCI and Dawa militias AND Sadr's Mahdi Army on the US. Part of that is because in the first couple of years after 2003, Ayatollah Sistani kept the Shia in restraint, with his eye on the Shia dominating the government in the elections. He got his wish, then has been marginalized by subsequent events.

Now there are two people in charge in Iran - the Iranians and Moqtada al-Sadr. Everything in Iraq hinges on what those two parties do. Sadr is a nationalist, but the Iranians don't mind him too much. They'd prefer to deal with ICSI and Dawa, but they'll deal with Sadr if he can take over. The only thing the Iranians care about is that the Sunni don't get in charge ever again.

Beyond that, the Iranians want the US OUT of Iraq - and so do the Sunni and the Shia on all sides.

If Bush and Cheney attack Iran - which is virtually a given at this point - ALL of those sides - except the Kurds - are going to attack the US military. And there is nothing the US military can do about that except evacuate.

There is absolutely no way the US can prevent Iraq from eventually either melting down in a full-scale civil war which forces the US military out, OR turning into a Sunni-Sadr nationalist-led coalition government which turns on the US and forces the US military out. The fall provincial elections and next year's parliamentary elections will tell the tale. After that, it will either be civil war, or a nationalist government.

Either way, the US is leaving.

But there is not much evidence that either of those scenarios will turn into a REGIONAL war UNLESS the US attacks Iran. Then all bets are off.

As for Mixner, parsing bullshit is his specialty. Go back and read any of his posts on torture or any other subject.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 11:16 PM

In silly glibertarian boy Mixner's mind, the path between 'Iraq now' and 'Happy Iraqi living alongside happy American soldiers in 2100' is as clear and straightforward as the one between himself and Megan McArdle's pants.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 1, 2008 12:00 AM

I don't see a damn thing wrong with any of the ads thus far. And it's worth noting that nowhere in either of them do the Democrats say "John McCain wants to stay in violent, wartorn Iraq for 100 years" or "John McCain wants to stay in Iraq taking heavy casualties for 100 years." Democrats just say McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, which fucking true even under the rosier scenario the Republicans are laying out.

Howard Dean explicitly offered on MSNBC to put the full quote on TV if Republicans send him the money. If they're so upset about it, and think the context matters so much, they should cut a check and see if he's bluffing. I'm sure the Obama campaign will match whatever funds the Rs put up.

Posted by southpaw | May 1, 2008 12:19 AM

Jesus, Al and Mixner are acting like fucking babies.

McCain has had 0 opposition, nada, nuthin', zippo.

One little ad and these guys lose their shit.

McCain is so fucked, his amateur hour campaign is not even vaguely ready for the tidal wave that's gonna come crashing down.

The GOP's only hope is an August fight between the Dems.

Posted by mike | May 1, 2008 3:09 AM

""WTF is up with that anyway? We can't be worried about the East Germans anymore. Is it the Poles? The Ukranians?""

How about WTF is up with you trusting Germans ?
You can't take your eye off em for a minute.

Posted by Kilo | May 1, 2008 3:46 AM

BCM lays out the basic facts, notwithstanding the usual mind-reading, gossip-mongering, and fantasy extrapolation by The Amazing Hack. There should be some minimal standards for credibility here--Sadr is increasingly isolated, Iran is not taking over Iraq, there will CERTAINLY be no attack on Iran, and in fact it's likely there will be some kind of steps towards detente early in the next administration. Let's see who proves correct over the next year.

I think McCain's almost certainly going to lose, at which point all the Dems imagining a brave new isolationism are going to, perhaps, face reality--there will be no practical difference in our Iraq policy with President Obama or Clinton.

We didn't just wake up one morning and find ourselves involved in Iraq--it's been a place of vital US interests for decades, and those interests are more pressing now than ever. People who think we can attend to these interests by remote control or even that they don't exist are simply naive. Maybe it won't be a hundred years if we start deploying hydrogen fuel cells next year, but then I'm not holding my breath on that count.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 1, 2008 4:17 AM

She might want to brush up her history a little:

The US occupations cited by John McCain [South Korea, Japan, Germany] are cases in which the United States entered a country to liberate it from an outside aggressor.

?!

Posted by novakant | May 1, 2008 5:43 AM

We didn't just wake up one morning and find ourselves involved in Iraq--it's been a place of vital US interests for decades, and those interests are more pressing now than ever.

True, but we did wake up one day to find that we had invaded and occupied the place, and no amount of attempting to say "but but but troubles with Iraq had existed since 1991" will change that fact.

There are lots of places on the Earth in which "our" vital interests are being dealt with without our actually occupying the area.

And although I grant that right now you are free to make all sorts of grand predictions that there simply is no likelihood that any U.S. political leaders dare choose to deal with our vital interests in Iraq by ending the occupation, this again is either an empirical or an ideological claim.

As an empirical claim it's simply unsupportable.

As an ideological claim, sure, make it all you want, that there simply is no way for the U.S. to end the occupation before you feel it's the right time, and before the factors you believe are significant are addressed.

And should reality one day begin to differ from your claims of what simply "must" be true, feel free to condemn every political leader who made those different decisions as idiots or cowards or Quislings and whatnot.

Personally I think the U.S. will in fact begin to walk back from the occupation fairly soon, and it will do so rather procedurally, and as the troops begin to be drawn back, the reporters will leave, and due to the cursed or blessed capacity of Americans to forget nearly anything or at least have it leave from conscious concerns, it will fade as an issue into the general maelstrom of crucial foreign policy issues, no matter how many demand that it must be the central front in our struggle against etc.

But that's an empirical claim, and I am not going to argue that that is what "must" happen given my views of the laws of history and so forth.

Posted by El Cid | May 1, 2008 7:49 AM

all the Dems imagining a brave new isolationism

That's a great version of newspeak, Robert Powell. Here, let me try. "All the neoconservatives and liberal hawks imagining a brave new douchebaggery are going to be deeply disappointed."

(Substantive point: not wanting to occupy Iraq forever != isolationism).

Posted by Anonymous | May 1, 2008 9:11 AM

Personally I think the U.S. will in fact begin to walk back from the occupation fairly soon

I wish I had your confidence of this, Mr. Cid. I suspect, though, that Mr. Powell will be proven correct, and that US Iraq policy under either Democratic President will show little dramatic change -- rather, continued drift without much resolution. Like most Dem leaders both Clinton and Obama are risk-averse in foreign policy, where the 'risk' borne foremost in mind is the risk that any policy shift at all will be portrayed as appeasement or weakness by the Republicans and their MSM enablers.

But yes, the "brave new isolationism" crack was douchbaggy. Powell's generally a principled guy, and not an extremist, but like many with a military background his view of liberals is a juvenile caricature.

Posted by Ryan | May 1, 2008 9:52 AM

As I have noted before, using McCain's words in this way will remain fair unless and until he actually articulates an exit strategy from Iraq.

Of course he isn't going to do that, because he doesn't see a need for us to exit from Iraq, so he sees no need for an exit strategy.

Which of course is the point the Democrats are making, which brings us back to the conclusion that this line of attack is in fact fair.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 9:56 AM

Robert Powell asserts: "Iran is not taking over Iraq"

Not everyone agrees with that being a certainty:
-------------------------------------
al-Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi (al-Ubaydi) in Najaf bitterly attacked Iran, accusing it of seeking to share with the US in influence over Iraq.

He pointed to the Iranian's regime's failure to condemn the long-term mutual security agreement being crafted by the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government.

Al-Obeidi's angry denunciation suggests that Iran is backing PM Nuri al-Maliki and his current chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim against the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr.
---------------------
while i realize that stuff from the sadr camp should be taken with a grain of salt, i think his comment concerning the long-term mutual security agreement has some merit.

thoughts?

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 1, 2008 11:29 AM

It is unfair. We never said he wanted to be there for 100 years. It was a rhetorical point meant to emphasize the fact that the casualties were the problem, not the presence itself. Would there be problems if we did establish permanent bases there? Probably. But McCain merely said this was possible, and it obviously will not happen unless the Iraqi government wants. (For your information, sizable majorities of Iraqis support the US continuing to play a security role in their country against Al Qaeda and Iran. Check the ABC News poll from February.)

Posted by Duane | May 1, 2008 1:47 PM

Duane,

I've seen the exchange many times. The questioner was clearly motivated by a concern regarding our open-ended strategy for Iraq, and McCain was trying to cut him off before he could fully express that concern. So, yes, McCain was using a rhetorical device, the essence of which was to imply that Iraq was analogous to Japan or South Korea, and since no one objects to our long-standing presence in those countries, no one should be objecting to an open-ended strategy for Iraq.

And the point the Democrats are making is that this sort of response does not address the reality of what is actually happening in Iraq--Iraq isn't post-war Japan or post-war South Korea, but rather is currently engaged in an ongoing civil war--and thus it does not address the concerns which motivated that question in the first place.

And McCain has never really addressed those concerns, which is because he doesn't share them. So, using his response to make those points is indeed fair.

Posted by DTM | May 1, 2008 2:01 PM

McCain's apparent belief that our military bases elsewhere in the Persian Gulf are entirely unproblematic seems to reflect a limited comprehension of the overall situation. After all, even our military presence in Saudi Arabia hasn't been casualty-free and it's extremely likely that we wouldn't be able to keep all of the Gulf bases we currently have were the region more democratic,

As a person well familiar with overseas bases and who was even born in one, McCain is familiar with the frictions with nationals and the occasional casualties that crop up. Lefty insistance that all our overseas basis must be "casualty-free" or we must cut and run to "save our poor children in uniform and get them back to their mommies" is their usual dishonesty and ignorance of the nature of persistant low-level threat on certain overseas basis we lived with for many decades in places like Korea, Greece, KSA, Panama, Turkey, and the Philippines. We regularly lost a few to a few dozen off and on at all those bases from their anti-American Left or nationalist groups, Communist insurgencies, early Jihadi cause groups.

What is true, and McCain notes it, is that the level of violence in Iraq against our troops is well above the tolerable level of casualties we had in the Philippines, for example in the early 20th century, plus the 50s and early 60s from conflict with Huks and Moros, and Filipino nationalists after the main revolt was quashed.

Where we have light to no casualties, we still have the occasional friction of large protests. I saw large rallies in Sasebo, Yokosuka Japan, knew of huge protests in Okinawa and Korea and Greece and Spain at Rota. Every time US black thugs in uniform kill or rape a Japanese national, the Nipponese predictably go wild. Our European bases had mass protests as we confronted the Soviet MRBM threat by posting cruise missiles and Pershings until the Soviets backed down.

But things could settle down in Iraq once Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated in it's last redoubts and Syria and Iran agree to stop facilitating the killing of Americans in Iraq, and Iraqi citizens - or else...

Vanneman - Our casualties due to our military presence in Saudi Arabia is 3,000+ dead. Bin Laden attacked us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia.

Not really. AQ as well as 60 other Muslim terror groups is fond of giving lots of reasons why various infidels and heretics and takfir targets must be attacked. In the case of US infidels, the Fatwas the Islamoids issued and subsequent letters gave about 8 reasons why Americans deserved to die. Bases in KSA were one reason. But AQ happily kills for other reasons. 30,000 Haziris in Afghanistan were killed by AQ for the "crime" of being Shiite. The several thousand Iraqi civilians blown up by AQ, plus their grand Mosque in Samarra had nothing to do with Iraqis having military bases in KSA. Nor were the children of Beslan stationing troops in the Land of the Two Mosques and Mecca....

Arguing that 9/11 was ALL America's fault for having troops there protecting KSA and it's oil supply from Saddam and IF ONLY we weren't there we WOULDn't have gotten the death and destruction the Left blames on it - is specious Lefty logic.

Posted by chris ford | May 1, 2008 2:47 PM

on one tape he made osama explains that the idea to attact the wtc came in 1982 after he saw
destruction in lebanon that he blamed jointly on the israelies and the americans.

http://mprofaca.cro.net/binladen_oct2904.html

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 1, 2008 5:41 PM

El Cid: "As an empirical claim it's simply unsupportable."

No, it's not. It's not only supportable, it's predictable, and virtually inevitable. Let's have a credibility test, shall we?

Posted by Robert Powell | May 1, 2008 6:36 PM

Robert Powell: Indeed. Let's have a credibility test, and an empirical one. We'll wait and see, because surely you didn't mean another one of your pompous and tedious sermons as a "credibility test", did you?

Posted by El Cid | May 1, 2008 11:03 PM

Asshat Powell wants a "credibility test".

I already have a bet with Arnold Evans that Iran will be attacked before January 1, 2009 (or maybe it was before January 20th, when the new President gets sworn in, I forget.)

Given the current Iran rhetoric, another aircraft carrier going to the Gulf, and this being an election year, it's virtually guaranteed I'm going to win that one.

The only requirement of the bet is a public acknowledgment that I was correct - on this site now that I'm banned from TPM, where the bet was originally.

Up for it, asshat Powell?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 2, 2008 12:28 AM

I will be delighted to take that bet Hack, but would prefer that it be, in addition to a public acknowledgement of error when there is no attack on Iran during the remainder of the Bush term, a sharp reduction in the number of posts on the subject.

You could already cut the length of your posts in half by omitting adolescent name-calling and totally unsupported charges of "lying".

djspellchecka provides useful information here. It seems to me far more likely that there will be steps in the direction of a detente with Iran around our shared interests than a confrontation with them.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 2, 2008 4:02 AM

Chris Ford writes : "Arguing that 9/11 was ALL America's fault for having troops there protecting KSA and it's oil supply from Saddam and IF ONLY we weren't there we Wouldn't have gotten the death and destruction ...."

i disagree. osama has made it clear that troops is Saudi Arabia, Iraqis dying because of the sanctions and mistreatment of Palestinians by America's ally Israel were the reasons for the 9/11 attack.

obviously it wasn't Americans who flew planes into the twin towers, but i think the "blowback" theory has merit.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 2, 2008 1:27 PM