Krauthammer's Case

In Version 1 of the argument over whether or not the United States should embrace the Bush/McCain vision of a neoimperial relationship with Iraq, the tendency on the right was to simply deny that this was what they were proposing. The Iraqis, you see, really wanted to be part of an American imperium. Thus in that sense it's good to see Charles Krauthammer's demented column in reaction to Maliki's endorsement of a timeline for withdrawal.

Now Krauthammer is willing to more-or-less squarely put the issue on the table -- he wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, Bush wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, and McCain wants an imperial relationship with Iraq, but Iraqis don't and thus Maliki prefers Obama, the American candidate who doesn't favor an imperial relationship with Iraq. Of course Krauthammer doesn't quite put it that way, but that's what he's saying -- we ought to vote for McCain because McCain will do a better job of strong-arming the Iraqis into accepting a relationship they find repugnant. The trouble here is that any such strong-arming only guarantees that we'll prolong the Iraq operation. Newfound allies, for example, who decided to side with us against al-Qaeda may think again if they decide that U.S. policy is being animated by the Krauthammer-style sentiments. And across the Arab world, everyone's worst impressions of American power will be reconfirmed. And for what? To mitigate political risk for western oil companies? To provide a convenient base of operations for attacks on Iran that we shouldn't launch anyway?

Comments

For some years now, I've begun wondering about the proper etiquette for the hanging of demented cripples in wheelchairs.

It seems to me that this is an issue of growing national importance, which someone should certainly begin researching...

Posted by RKU | July 25, 2008 9:57 AM

Krauthammer always place this game. In the first Gulf War, all the right wing played up that the U.S. and UK led a grand coalition, such majesty as had never etc. etc., and Bush Sr. was a master of diplomacy for bringing it about.

As soon as the war was over, Krauthammer and the rest of the right complained bitterly that the awesome imperial majesty of the post-Soviet U.S. should not have to scrape and bow and pretend to have to make coalitions, and the Bush Sr. types were weak cowards for all the feinting towards reluctant allies.

It's an old game, but as long as it gets them what they want, they'll play it.

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2008 9:59 AM

Krauthammer's scathing attack on the anti-war crowd that its reasons to oppose the war keep on shifting is devastating, especially in view of the fixed and firmed rationale for the presence of our troops in the country as always espoused by Krauthammer and the other warmongers.

Posted by gregor | July 25, 2008 10:00 AM

I would also point out that if permanent basing agreement is not politically viable with the Iraqis, then the idea of a South Korea style occupation is clearly ludicrous. We'd be fighting armed insurgents for a 100 years.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | July 25, 2008 10:04 AM

RKU

What's most interesting about Dr. Krauthammer is that early on, he intimated that his paralysis was due to a case of polio. However, it appears that it is actually due to a clumsy dive into a swimming pool.

However, I have to say that Mr. RKUs' comment in which he intimates that somebody should cancel Dr. Krauthammers' ticket is out of line, just as was a suggestion by Mr. Don Williams some months ago in which he suggested that Dr. Krauthammers' wheel chair should be shoved out into traffic (in front of Bob Novaks' Corvette perhaps?). Dr. Krauthammer is no more demented than many of the commentors on this blog, such as myself, Mr. Hack, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hameed, Mr. Trevor, etc.

Posted by SLC | July 25, 2008 10:08 AM

It's one of the hardest things to get Serious people to understand: that America is not literally incapable of undertaking imperialist enterprises. If you invade another country and you stay even though the people of that country don't want you to, you're just another rapacious aggressor nation. I think this is again an example of people who begin from the assumption that everything that America does is righteous, and so anything that appears immoral or aggressive has to be ignored, rationalized or equivocated about. This is precisely the sort of impediment to self-determination and democracy we have been saying we are opposed to for the past 7 years.

Posted by Freddie | July 25, 2008 10:09 AM

One nice thing about all this becoming more clear is that when these jokers get their electoral hats handed to them, it will similarly be clear to most that the American people did in fact reject their dreams of empire, and weren't just turning on them due to their incompetence at empire-building.

Of course these jokers will continue to claim that secretly the American people really do share their dreams of empire, but even if the GOP continues to buy that claim, that just means more lost elections until they figure it out.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:12 AM

We'd be fighting armed insurgents for a 100 years.

Well, yes. It's pretty clear that the war lovers have decided that a long term low grade (they hope) insurgency is a price worth paying for a base for projecting power in the Middle East. That's a price many imperial powers have been willing to pay from time immemorial.

Of course, from the Republican's prospective an ongoing insurgency has the added bonus of allowing them to wave the bloody flag against their imperial partners (but political opponents), the Democrats. And both of the imperial parties can blame the insurgency on the Iranians to help drum up support for their next imperial conquest.

So while it's a mistake to believe that the war parties want a serious insurgency, a low-grade insurgency serves their interests well.

Posted by LarryM | July 25, 2008 10:15 AM

"However, I have to say that Mr. RKUs' comment in which he intimates that somebody should cancel Dr. Krauthammers' ticket is out of line"

I agree. I would also consider out of line to suggest that Krauthermmer should be strapped to a heat seeking missle which would fired off somewhere in the Atlantic.

Posted by am | July 25, 2008 10:17 AM

For some years now, I've begun wondering about the proper etiquette for the hanging of demented cripples in wheelchairs.

I've got to rewatch my Dr. Who and figure out how they got rid of Davros.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 10:19 AM

The Iraqis want a withdrawal timeline and now even Bush appears to be open to it. McCain is stuck in the past.

http://www.political-buzz.com/
Live political video chat
http://www.myoovooday.com/political/

Posted by matt | July 25, 2008 10:21 AM

It's a matter of ego. Racially-inferior brown people knocked Kraut's dick in the dirt on 9/11, and unless we send other people to grind brown people into submission, Kraut and the other conservatives can't get their own back.

Traumatized people usually lash out. Kraut could tell you that.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 10:25 AM

No research needed Ed, they didn't. Just keep watching this season on SciFi.

Posted by Rob | July 25, 2008 10:27 AM

Thanks for this catch, Matt. This is really the core of it all, behind the smoke and mirrors -- once other rationales for staying drop away, the Right is forced to explain what they really wanted Iraq to be about.

As DTM says, it's probably a good thing that the argument in this election should be drawn in these stark terms.

Posted by Ted | July 25, 2008 10:28 AM

Didn't the time lords put him on trial at some point?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 10:30 AM

"Didn't the time lords put him on trial at some point?"

The Time Lords got ahold of of Dr Krauthammer?!!

Posted by Scott Ferguson | July 25, 2008 10:39 AM

Didn't the time lords put him on trial at some point?

Yes, but that was in a play about him. The official TV show had him put on trial by the Daleks, sometime in the mid-80's (Revelation of the Daleks). As for THIS season, I just skipped SciFi and found it on YouTube (admittedly it was poor quality but I found it anyway).

Maybe we could send Krauthammer and BushCo into an alternate universe or something?

Posted by JDinBalt | July 25, 2008 10:46 AM

Matt:

"For what?"

To elect a Republican to the White House in 2008. They're stuck now because every single tiny little bit of their flag-waving jingoistic demagoguery which HAD won them elections and which seemed likely to again has been swamped by events.

So they're stuck with neo-Imperialism until some other dumb excuse comes along.

Posted by jfxgillis | July 25, 2008 10:47 AM

So let me get this straight... we have military bases in over 100 countries around the world. Do you all honestly believe we won't have significant military presence in Iraq in 4 years?

A creepy man once said:
"This is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen"
I guess he was right.

Posted by AJ | July 25, 2008 10:49 AM

Didn't the time lords put him on trial at some point?

No, that was the Master.

Here's an account of the latest of Davros' travails. Nickel version: once again held captive by his own creations (the Daleks), he gets humiliated by the Doctor yet again after an emotional confrontation. He appears to die, but we know that means squat in a sci-fi series.

Parallels to Krauthammer: Well Krauthammer has been stuck these last eight years defending the antics of one idiot king, and now has to carry water for another, who seems doomed to be defeated by his younger and smarter opponent. Will Krauthammer's humiliation never end?

Posted by jimBOB | July 25, 2008 10:52 AM

Krauthammer, like all Republicans, wants it both ways. Why else include this line "a caveat Obama generally omits"? I don't know how often Obama omits caveats, but I suspect that it isn't often, if ever. But even a couple of omissions isn't "generally". Whenever I've heard Obamma talk about removing troops from Iraq, the remarks are as studded with caveats as our family hams were studded with disgusting cloves, and Krauthammer knows this. He's just implying that Obamma's naive without coming right out and saying it AND giving the impression that he's simultaneously cynical.

Bad Krauthammer.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 10:53 AM

The funniest thing about the column is actually Krauthammer's beleif that we have bases in Germany, Korea, and Japan because we properly put them in their place. It is not so much that he sees Iraq as a peaceful presence as in those other countries, but rahter that he seems to see those other countries as ones that accept our presence because we have shown them who is boss.

Posted by Lon | July 25, 2008 10:54 AM

I read Krauthammer's column and can't see the reason for all the personal assaults. Instead, it seems like a pretty good overview of the negotiations that are, no doubt, going on even as we speak.

To wit: Consensus seems to be building toward a withdrawl of most American ground forces by the end of 2010. The Iraqis want it and even the military guys in charge of training the Iraq security forces say the job will be pretty much done by June of that year.

Even after the withdrawl, some U.S. presence will remain. There will be a large contingent around the embassy and others will remain as advisors as Iraq continues to rebuild its miserable air force, navy and police. Chances are good contracts will be involved since only the U.S., Russia and France appear capable of building proper aircraft so the ire can start building now.

What's left is the presence of forward bases in the country after the withdrawl. This will be no doubt contentious as the Iraqi people and the Iraqi military seem split on a continued U.S. presence. The Saudis want us out so I'd bet we end up in Kuwait and Dubai.

I'm more and more impressed by al Maliki's development as a politician. He's verbally giving everybody what they want while promising practically nothing.

As for those who regularly attack Krauthammer, you're quoting the wrong sci-fi thriller. It's not Doctor Who, it's Plan 9 from Outer Space.

"You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"

Posted by DrewShaw | July 25, 2008 11:23 AM

If you think, as I do, that the reason why the glorious surge worked is that the Iraqi factions decided that the US was eventually leaving, and they were better off holding their fire on each other, and cooperating with the US to get military equipment and training in prep for an eventual civil war, then, at some point, I would think that the realization that the US plans to stay forever will re-ignite the anti-US insurgency, and perhaps even create a Sunni-Shiite United Front against the occupation.

It is more likely that the prospect of US withdrawal has decreased violence in Iraq, rather than the Glorious Surge itself.

Of course, sooner or later, there will a civil war in Iraq, unless the Iraqis decide that they don't want one.

Posted by Tom in Ma | July 25, 2008 11:33 AM

Senator Obama agrees with Mr. Ed Marshall, Mr. Richard Steven Hack, and Mr. Hameed; killing Jews is OK, especially those who live in the State of Israel.

"Barack Obama and the Unmentionable Terror Target
By Stephen J. Kohn July 25, 2008

Sen. Obama's delivered a crucial speech in Berlin on July 24. Find the missing words.

"This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope."

Amman?

After spending 24 hours in Israel the day before, speaking in front of rockets that had fallen on Sderot, and staying at a hotel on a street subject to a terror attack hours before his arrival, the senator shows his true beliefs -- that terror against Jews somehow is less heinous, violent and meaningful than that inflicted on others.

How revealing that he omitted Israel from his list of terror targets when speaking in Berlin.

Just as in his 24 hour switch on the status of Jerusalem, following his AIPAC speech, the chameleoneque senator changes his message on terror as the surroundings change.

Where does the senator stand on terror against Israel?

Depends where he's standing today"

Posted by SLC | July 25, 2008 11:39 AM

It looks like we have finally peeled the onion down to the last layers.

Of course this has always been about projecting power in the middle east. Preserving the free flow of oil and maintaining control of the region have always been the true goal of this military adventure.

All the other rationales have always been a smokescreen because the American people don't want to run an empire. The war party deserves to get their asses handed to them this fall.

Posted by danimal | July 25, 2008 11:40 AM

I've never previously learned any historical facts or gleaned any useful information from a Charles Krauthammer column. But thanks to him, with a little help from intrepid Atlantic readers, I now know that it was The Master, not Davros, who was placed on trial by the Time Lords. And that has to count for something.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM

However, I have to say that Mr. RKUs' comment in which he intimates that somebody should cancel Dr. Krauthammers' ticket is out of line, just as was a suggestion by Mr. Don Williams some months ago in which he suggested that Dr. Krauthammers' wheel chair should be shoved out into traffic (in front of Bob Novaks' Corvette perhaps?). Dr. Krauthammer is no more demented than many of the commentors on this blog, such as myself, Mr. Hack, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hameed, Mr. Trevor, etc.

Krauthhammer has a national platform and a consequent effect on policy; none of the demented commenters on this site do. Reason enough to applaud the calls for his hanging and/or traffic death.

But I would also dispute the claim that he is no more demented than comemters on this site. Most of the more demented commenters here are clearly venting to some extent, and are not altogether serious (well, I'll except Chris Ford from that). Krauthammer is entirely serious.

I mean, take SLC for example. As the above quoted comment makes clear, he is aware that his expressed comments on this site are sometimes looney. I bet he doesn't even REALLY want to see Tehran nuked. (Though the fact that he advocates it, even unseriously, does make him a horrible human being, using the term human being in its loosest sense). But Krauthammer, you get the impression, would be thrilled to drop the bomb on Tehran, and probably jerks off (query - can he even do that any more? one would hope not) to fantasies of killing all of the Moslems.

So hang him high, I say, hang him by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

Finally, it is particularly revealing that even a genocidal Likudnik crazy man like SLC can see that Krauthammer is demented.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 11:55 AM

I read Krauthammer's column and can't see the reason for all the personal assaults.

Then you are clearly too stupid to live. Please buy a gun, load it, put it in your mouth, point it towards your brain, and pull the trigger.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 12:10 PM

Re voice of reason

1. Apparently, Mr. voice of reason has arrived at this blog subsequent to the apparent departure of Mr. Don Williams who, with his multiple conspiracy theories is at least as demented as Mr. Chris Ford.

2. Mr. voice of reason has apparently also missed the calls by Mr. Richard Steven Hack for the assassination of police officers. I don't know about Mr. voice but that sounds pretty demented to me, especially given the fact that Mr. Hack is a convicted armed bank robber who thought nothing of shoving a gun in a bank tellers face and suggesting that the latter hand over the cash in his drawer on pain of being terminated with extreme prejudice and who spent 9 years in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth for his crimes.

3. Mr voice proposes that Dr. Krauthammer be hanged from the highest yardarm. Would that be before or after a trial? Before constitutes lynching.

4. If Mr. voice thinks that Dr. Krauthammer has a large audience, it pales in comparison to that of right wing fascist radio talk show host Michael Savage, nee Weiner, who makes Jeffery Dahmer look sane.

Posted by SLC | July 25, 2008 12:50 PM

So much hostility to Krauthammer, its unacceptable. Like making comments about somelike at the end of this clip happening to Charles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUqW5ZHyyiw

Posted by am | July 25, 2008 1:01 PM

Mr. Voice of Reason has serious anger issues. He's always blowing something up or condemning someone to a horrible and hyperbolic death.

Posted by DrewShaw | July 25, 2008 1:01 PM

SLC,

(1) I am, indeed, not familiar with Mr. Williams.

(2) (a) First of all, Mr. Hack is clearly one of the people here whose posts here are intentionally exaggerated and not altogether serious. (b) Calling for the assassination of police officers, as wrongheaded as it is, is nowhere near as demented as Mr. Krauthammer's rantings.

(3) After trial, of course. And not in the first wave of hangings, either. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc., would come first (after trial, of course).

(4) Indeed. But that's hardly the relevant comparison; I think you would agree that Mr. Krauthammer's audience is much larger than the readership of the comment section of this blog. My only other comment would be that hanging is probably too good for Mr. Weiner.

I am reluctant to admit it, given your appalling views on so many issues, but bantering with you is sometimes enjoyable SLC.

DrewShaw,

Anger is often an entirely appropriate response to events in the world. I would suggest that specifically that anything less than extreme anger towards the current state of this nation's foriegn policy, and ancillary domestic policy, would deprecate the seriousness of our nation's many crimes.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 1:27 PM

Re SLC's comment "Apparently, Mr. voice of reason has arrived at this blog subsequent to the apparent departure of Mr. Don Williams who, with his multiple conspiracy theories is at least as demented as Mr. Chris Ford."
---------------
1) I am ..er.. unmanned by SLC's sudden tendency to shower me with flattery.

Modesty ,however, compels me to point out that Mr Ford develops his "demented conspiracy theories" out of the ether whereas I, alas, must plagerize from reality and also have an unfortunate tendency to be shackled by respect for mere facts.

2) I confess a certain fascinated awe at SLC's rants -- and would dearly love to discover their source.
He seems to be caught in a reality distortion field -- my comment a few months ago that I would reward SLC if he gave Krauthammer a little shove when Kraut was at the head of an escalator somehow became a comment urging that Kraut be pushed into heavy traffic.

3) Speaking as a Southern gentleman and graduate of the University of Virginia, I must note that it actually takes some skill to carry off a lynching with the desired elan.

The US Army long ago worked out the correct drop table for rope length versus body weight. You probably want 10 feet of slack rope for a lightweight like Krauthammer -- i.e, you want him to work up some speed before coming to a sudden halt. With a short rope, you get an embarrassing public display of dancing due to slow strangulation vice the neck being broken.

By contrast , you would only want to use a few feet of rope when lynching Rush Limbaugh. Else you will pop his head clean off.

PS Remember to also stretch the rope beforehand.

See http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:BRx0yWIPue0J:www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf+%22US+Army%22+%22Procedures+for+Military+Executions%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

or Google "US Army" and "Procedures for Military Executions"

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2008 1:42 PM

I love you Don Williams... out of all the over the top posters on this blog I find you the most enjoyable. I am still laughing about the snarling fishwife thing regarding Hillary.

MY, I request that you do a post stating which poster you would side with if someone put a gun to your head and made you choose and why
your choices are the following:
Richard Steven Hack
SLC
Voice of Reason
AL
Chris Ford
Sailor
or
Don Williams

I think that I would go with Don or Richard Steven Hack.. probably SLC in a distant third... sorry voice of reason you are too new and too violent for my taste.

Posted by AJ | July 25, 2008 1:59 PM

Pointing out the obvious earns you no subtlety points and is often tedious. However:

When Obama refers to terror attacks in "Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York," he is quite obviously talking exclusively about attacks carried out by "Al-Qaida." (The quotes are to reserve the issue as to what extent that is a coherent entity rather than a logo for a franchise.) He didn't talk about Sderot for the same reason he didn't talk about, say, Belfast and Colombo: Because terror attacks there have been committed by groups distinct from "Al-Qaida" in pursuit of their own distinct objectives.

Since 2001, influential people in the United States have pursued, for obvious reasons and with considerable success, a strategy of conflating Hamas and Hezbollah with Al-Qaida in the public mind, under the meaningless label "Islamofascism." Obama's choice of words is a signal that he and his advisors are not buying into that. No wonder SLC is upset.

(For the record, my sympathies in the conflict between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah are almost entirely with Israel.)

Posted by roac | July 25, 2008 2:03 PM

sorry voice of reason you are too new and too violent for my taste.

It's an honor just to be nominated.

At the risk of making a serious comment, query regarding the violence. Are my calls for individual ... well, I'd say justice, call it violence if you will ... really more violent than (for example) SLCs calls for genocide? Seriously?

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 2:07 PM

my comment a few months ago that I would reward SLC if he gave Krauthammer a little shove when Kraut was at the head of an escalator somehow became a comment urging that Kraut be pushed into heavy traffic.

More common reaction than you think.

Several years later, this violent desire grabbed me again, only in a crowded, public space. This time it was Charles Krauthammer, in Madison Square Garden during the 1992 Democratic convention. IOZ reminded me today of how detestable Krauthammer remains, a smug advocate for imperial slaughter who has the fucking nerve to question the morality of others. As you may or may not know, Krauthammer is confined to a wheelchair (due to a diving accident), and there he was at the Garden, above a steep flight of stairs, staring at the proceedings. I was with Hitchens, and I whispered to him about how I should push Krauthammer down those stairs for all of the misery he had helped cause, and would continue to cause. Hitch smiled, and suggested that this would be cruelty to the handicapped, though he did understand my desire.

"My uncle's in a wheelchair," I responded. "He's a great guy, and unlike Krauthammer, a veteran." The fact that Krauthammer couldn't walk was irrelevant, though in this scenario, handy. But I could never actually do it. Instead, Hitch and I went to the press bar and drank. So the afternoon wasn't a complete loss.

See what politics does to people? I should've stayed in comedy and gone more lucratively insane.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/04/diary-of-mad-lad.html

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 2:08 PM

‰e Don Williams

1. Hey, Mr. Williams is back! As the leading paranoid on this blog, his rantings about Hiam Saban have been missed and we have been forced to satisfy ourselves with the drivel of Mr. Hack and of late Mr. voice of reason.

2. UVA, stands for Utterly Vacuous Assholes, home of such worthies as Pat Michaels and Fred Singer.

3. Apologies to Mr. Williams. I apparently confused his desire to do shove Dr. Krauthammer off an escalator with Mr. Hacks' desire to shove Michael Savage into traffic. Of course, the result would be the same.

4. What makes Mr. Williams think that Dr. Krauthammer is a lightweight. He looks pretty hefty to me.

5. Mr. Williams refers to himself as a "Southern Gentleman." Others might attach the sobriquet redneck.

Re Ed Marshall

Considering that Mr. Hitchens is an enthusiastic supporter of the US adventure in Iraq, he would have somewhat of a crust criticizing Dr. Krauthammer.

Re voice of reason

If capital punishment is to be carried out, I think that the medieval Catholic Church had the right approach, namely burning at the stake. Much more satisfying then mundane hanging.

Re roac

I haven't listened to or read Senator Osamas' speech in Berlin but if what Mr. roac says is true, that the senator was referring to Al Qaida, then Mr. roac makes a good point. As I have stated on numerous occasions, despite Osama bin Ladens' diatribes against the State of Israel, Al Qaeda has yet to launch an attack there. He's all mouth and no action on that front. For the information of Mr. roac, none of the Palestinian factions want anything to do with Al Qaida as their beef is with Israel while the latters' beef is with the rest of the world, including much of the Islamic world. Beyond settling their beef with Israel, the Palestinians don't have much interest as to the happenings elsewhere.

Posted by SLC | July 25, 2008 3:29 PM

"With a short rope, you get an embarrassing public display of dancing due to slow strangulation vice the neck being broken...By contrast, you would only want to use a few feet of rope when lynching Rush Limbaugh. Else you will pop his head clean off."

Well, a length of rope suitable for "dancing" has much to recommend itself...but so too does a length suitable for "popping". Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Perhaps the best idea would be to turn the event into a prime-time television spectacular, with viewers being able to vote on a case-by-case basis via a premium 900-number ($1 per call, $2 for overseas). I suspect that huge progress would be made on reducing our alarming national debt before the supply of serious miscreants was totally exhausted.

On a more somber note, I very much regret that the press of my own work has kept me away from Matt's blogsite over the last couple of months. And now I hear that Matt will soon be departing to CAP, where those milquetoast Sorosites will quite likely prohibit even the most innocent technical discussions of rope-length and gravity and such.

"Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot..."

Posted by RKU | July 25, 2008 4:05 PM

If capital punishment is to be carried out, I think that the medieval Catholic Church had the right approach, namely burning at the stake. Much more satisfying then mundane hanging.

There is, of course, also drawing and quartering. Talk about satisfying!!

But sadly intellectual consistency and my firm opposition to torturing even monsters like Cheney and Bush force me to oppose drawing and quartering.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 4:24 PM

the problem with jumping all over maliki's 'americans can leave soon' schtick is that he has said a variation of this every few months for the last coupla years:

- may 06: "...Iraqi forces are capable of taking control of security in all of Iraq within 18 months" [that expired ~nov07]
- oct 06: "....it's only a matter of months before they can start leaving and freeing themselves from this burden." [that 'timetable' came and went too]
- jan 07: "The Iraqi government's need for American troops would 'dramatically go down' in three to six months" [mid-2007 is so last year]
- it keeps going and going and going...

until the iraqi gov't formalizes this policy, maliki is "talking his book" [an investment/trader phrase for publically touting an opinion for one's own benefit]. while iraqi sovereignty certainly must be respected, that sovereignty must be expressed through laws and gov't action--and it appears unlikely that any long-term SoFA will be made before both countries' elections in the fall.

- but don't just take my work for it. one person who probably garners respect around here once made an interesting comment:
"It doesn't make sense to bend the disposition of the bulk of the United States Army to what Maliki feels he needs or wants to do, but it also doesn't make sense for Maliki's policies to be bent according to the dictates of US Central Command"

Posted by nitish | July 25, 2008 5:04 PM

SLC must have some sort of fetish for vehicular accidents - sort of like the movie "Crash" - except presumably he doesn't actually get to do any sex.

I don't recall ever suggesting Michael Savage should be shoved into traffic. A bullet in the head, maybe. Poison, perhaps. Maybe I just mis-remember. Wishing he would get run over by a truck isn't the same thing, though.

Anybody deciding to side with me because they have a gun to their head is probably doing so because I hold the gun.

And unfortunately for them, I don't consider that a real good reason.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 25, 2008 11:18 PM

Er, Nitish. What Matt said in that column was that -- since, if we're trying to win the war, it didn't make strategic sense either for Maliki to tell the US Army what to do OR for the US Army to tell Maliki what to do -- the only way to resolve the contradiction was for us to give up on the impossible task of trying to win the war. IF Maliki's military and political strengths have improved enough since then that he can retain control of Iraq (which is a very big "if"), then the situation has changed -- and we now have a chance of sorta kinda winning the war, if by "winning the war" you mean installing a leader who's trying to appeal to both us and Iran simultaneously, and who is probably going to end up as a strongman to boot. But we are still going to have to get lost fast -- regardless of the results of our own election -- since there is now not a single political party in Iraq that wants us to hang around for any protracted period of time (except among the Kurds, who also don't want to remain part of Iraq at all). If DAWA wins the election on a platform of promising to kick out the Americans fast, and then double-crosses the Iraqi people on that, there will be hell to pay.

As for Krauty's column, it's unclear whether he's actually implying (as Matt says) that we ought to force Iraq to let us stay, or simply mourning the fact that they want us to go. (In the latter case, he'd be in exactly the same bed as the current Washington Post editorial team.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 26, 2008 12:16 AM

Re voice of reason

Actually, the term is hanged, drawn, and quartered. The miscreant was hanged first before being drawn and quartered. Burning at the stake is much more satisfying.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Given Mr. Hacks' past criminal record, he might be well advised to lay off the comments about shooting people in the head or shoving then off a curb into traffic. I suspect law enforcement in San Francisco would not take kindly to them.

Posted by SLC | July 26, 2008 6:53 AM

SLC,

While you are correct as to the term, the hanging involved was for just a short time, until ALMOST dead, so the miscreant would be alive for the disemboweling. Women were given the LESSER punishment of burning at the stake.

But, again, consistency/intellectual honesty compels me to oppose it, even for Bush and Cheney.

Posted by voice of reason | July 26, 2008 9:50 AM

Bruce Moomaw, you're right, i didn't very much address the content of that Oct 31 2006 post, because it was kinda spectacularly wrong (and it woulda been a bit rude):
"And so it goes. The situation is an intractable conceptual and practical muddle."
Yglesias continued:
"I agree with Kevin Drum that the generals who are learning to love timetables and deadlines are tragically late to the party.... The time for announcing a timetable was late '04 or early '05 with the actual timetable pegged to the political events of 2005 so that withdrawal was part-and-parcel of the emergence of a new political order in Iraq. That might have contributed to Iraqi stability, and if it didn't work out would have at least been a face-saving measure. Now, basically, it's just fucked and there's really nothing to do but get out of Iraq and start working on diplomacy and so forth aimed at containing the fallout from the subsequent mess." [emphasis added]

essentially, the Yglesias-Drum policy would have been drawdowns tied to iraqi elections. the problem with this prescription, made in hindsight, was not much 'political order' actually happened. i suppose the thought process would have been that iraqis would have--what?--voted differently, really reconciled--based on what though?
in any case, the golden dome bombing set back all (if there was any) progress and sparked proto-civil war. thus al qaeda in iraq essentially had veto power on any progress Yglesias and Drum believed woulda happened. until AQI was dealt with and the militias at least somewhat marginalized, progress had a limited shelf life.

but could somebody address maliki's history of overpromising and underdelivering by saying 'americans can get out in ?? months' for the last two years. fortunately, it may actually have some basis in reality instead of being simple rhetoric due to the success of the surge that obama and dems opposed.

btw, when Bruce Moomaw refers to iraqi parties promising to kick out coalition forces, he seems to forget our own 2006 elections when dems promised alotta stuff to the american voters (who kinda wanted what they promised). sometimes politicians say things to win elections (like i oppose telecom immunity, nafta, etc) with no actual intention and/or ability to pull the trigger and deliver.

incidentally, all the davros-doctor who talk seemed prescient considering last night's episode

Posted by nitish | July 26, 2008 10:21 AM

SLC: "I suspect law enforcement in San Francisco would not take kindly to them."

Naah, they're too busy letting the entire WAN network in San Francisco get hijacked by a disgruntled IT worker.

As to threats, I found this, re Michael Reagan:

California's Penal Code 422, which states in part: Punishment for (Terrorist) Threats Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person with the specific intent that the statement made verbally in writing or by means of an electronic communication device is to be taken as a threat even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out which on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal unconditional immediate and specific as to convey to the person threatened a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or by imprisonment in the state prison.

In case you missed it, this is what Reagan said specifically: "We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets. How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."

But I guess since Michael Reagan is a fucktard with a nationally syndicated radio show, SLC has no problem with that. But he gets sexually excited by a passing reference on some blog.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 26, 2008 5:59 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack may be surprised to find that I consider Michael Reagan to be a fascist cocksucker and generally a piece of human filth, only a cut above Robert Novak and on a level with Michael Savage. If in fact, shithead Reagan said that, he should be headed to Mr. Hacks' former domicile in Leavenworth. Mr. Mark Dice, whoever the fuck he is, should be filing charges against fuckface Reagan.

Posted by SLC | July 27, 2008 9:44 AM