WaPost: We Need That Oil!

Silly Obama, doesn't realize the vital importance of democracy promotion according to Fred Hiatt & co:

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq 'distracts us from every threat we face' and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Oops, did I say democracy promotion? I meant to say that Iraq has a lot of oil so we need to try to micromanage its future. And yet it's precisely this impulse -- the belief that we desperately need to retain "influence" in oil-possessing parts of the world that got us into the corrupt bargain with the Arab autocracies that produced the conditions under which al-Qaeda arose and began targeting us. Remember when Iraq was supposed to be part of a drive for reform that changed that dynamic? Oh for the heady days of the Arab spring.

Comments

Is MY leaving The Atlantic? I haven't been able to keep up this week. Someone mind filling me in?

Posted by Scott | July 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Oil? Who said anything about oil? You cooking, bitch?

Posted by minderbender | July 16, 2008 5:46 PM

This is funny. Fred Hiatt says almost EXACTLY the same words Powell says every time he posts here.

It really is nothing but a set of talking points on cue cards for these propagandist assholes.

"Vital US security interest"! Substitute "our vital bodily fluids" and it makes as much sense.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 5:47 PM

This editorial makes me want to yell. I am assuming this guy was an early proponent of the war, yet he has the gall to call a consistent opponent of the invasion, irrational and ahistorical. You are the ones who wanted to invade Iraq under false pretenses and expected to be greeted as liberators. We've been there for 5 years already, how much longer do you need?!

It's all about coming up with new excuses to stay and new reasons to justify the huge expenses in blood and treasure of doing so. How are these people not being called out for their hypocracy? This is ridiculous.

Posted by Roman | July 16, 2008 5:53 PM

That’s funny. When I read the linked Post editorial, I don’t see anything that could remotely be characterized as calling for “micromanaging” Iraq’s future. Could you point out that section?

Posted by ostap | July 16, 2008 5:55 PM

But don't the GOP talking points tell us that we've got so much oil in ANWR and waiting offshore that we don't even need to worry if we just drill, drill, drill? ;-)

Posted by LFC | July 16, 2008 5:59 PM

I don't think the WaPost was ever big on the democracy-promotion thing. I'm happy to be corrected.

More importantly, Matt's response is just incoherent. It's Matt's darling Barry who wants to bring back the foreign policy realism Matt is criticizing. It's Barry who says he admires the foreign policy of Bush 1. Matt's problem, and Barry's too, is that saying those things and saying what they say about Iraq just don't fit together, as this editorial nicely points out.

Posted by Thomas | July 16, 2008 6:13 PM

OK... but how is Obama's desire to withdraw our military from the country the same as giving up any influence there??

Brazil, Kazakhstan and Nigeria all have oil, we have broader strategic interests in these places, yet we seem to maintain a healthy level of influence over these places without the deployment of thousands of soldiers or some malignant form of diplomacy.

Is America really so weak that we cannot have a relationship with Iraq without the pressure provided by 100K+ troops?

Posted by bubba | July 16, 2008 6:21 PM

"That’s funny. When I read the linked Post editorial, I don’t see anything that could remotely be characterized as calling for “micromanaging” Iraq’s future. Could you point out that section?

Posted by ostap | July 16, 2008 5:55 PM"

What do you call having a bunch of troops there while the Iraqi prime minister (the one we handpicked) is calling for a timetable for withdrawal? What do you call the WP's editorial board's support for policies against such a withdrawal? Occupations are micromanaging ventures by definition. You wouldn't occupy a place if you didn't wish to micromanage it.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 6:25 PM

@Richard Steven Hack:

OK, I'll take a stab.

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq 'distracts us from every threat we face' and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital bodily fluid. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

/Fixed.

Posted by Shine | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM

I love the way Matt, and the left, approach this. First, the surge wouldn't work. When that position became untenable, it was claimed that political goals weren't being reached. Then that became untenable. Now, we're back to arguing that we shouldn't be there at all. For all the claims of goal post shifting, most of that is happening on the left - and Obama is looking increasingly silly for pre-deciding, and then claiming he'll go to Iraq. Why should he go? He won't listen to anything he hears there anyway.

Posted by James Robertson | July 16, 2008 6:42 PM

Go sell some medicine bitches! I'm trying to get me some of that oil-loh-oh.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM

It's Matt's darling Barry who wants to bring back the foreign policy realism Matt is criticizing. It's Barry who says he admires the foreign policy of Bush 1. Matt's problem, and Barry's too, is that saying those things and saying what they say about Iraq just don't fit together, as this editorial nicely points out.

Paging Brent Scowcroft. Paging Richard Armitage. Paging Colin Powell.

The "realists" just missed a few moves and understand when the proper time will come to yield.

Posted by Gabriel Sutherland | July 16, 2008 6:47 PM

James Robertson wrote, "I love the way Matt, and the left, approach this. First, the surge wouldn't work. When that position became untenable, it was claimed that political goals weren't being reached."

Sweet. The goal of the surge (at least the one stated by the Bush Administration) was to allow Iraq to stabilize politically. But Robertson seems to have forgotten this and claims Matt, and the left, are moving the goal posts.

Posted by mrgumby2u | July 16, 2008 6:59 PM

No, I claim that the political goals are being reached, which is why Matt is no longer bringing that subject up.

Posted by James Robertson | July 16, 2008 7:26 PM

Was political reconciliation reached at the center? Nope. The Baathists weren't re-integrated into the system and no real oil-sharing bill promoting stability was passed. It's easy to act like you're right when you argue from assertion and mis-represent your opposition's arguments.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 7:45 PM

No, I claim that the political goals are being reached

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 16, 2008 7:59 PM

Yet another opinion piece noting that Obama needs to come up with a clearer policy on Iraq. Specifically, Obama needs to spell out what this "16 month timetable" really means. Is he willing to extend or delay it if advised to do so by military commanders and/or the Iraqi government? For how long? A few months? Years? Indefinitely until some military or political goal is satisfied? How many troops does he plan to leave in Iraq after this "withdrawal?" For how long? What exactly will their mission be? And what does he mean by "end the war?" What are his criteria for the war being at an "end?"

Obama's obtuseness and ambiguity on Iraq is going to become more and more of a liability as the election approaches.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 8:30 PM

Hilarious! You know what is ahistorical? Arguing for a continued occupation of Iraq. You know what the British did? They left Iraq. And then? Then Iraq started pumping oil. In fact, if our goal is as Fred states and to get Iraqi oil, the best way to do that is to leave. Sometimes the stupidity of conservatives is breathtaking.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 8:40 PM

freddiemac,

Arguing for a continued occupation of Iraq.

How many U.S. troops, exactly, constitutes an "occupation" of Iraq? Apparently, it's something between the unknown number Obama refers to as a "residual force" and the number currently present in the country. So what is it, to the nearest ten thousand or so? And whatever your answer is, how do you justify it? What criteria define an "occupation" rather than just a "military presence?"

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 8:53 PM

The corrupt, dishonest, servile, bootlicking bloodthirsty loser cretins at the Washington Post left out a little detail, as have some commmenters here.

The enduring relatinship/long term occupation show is $#@!##!! over. Or do people not pay attention to improtant political developments in our ally Iraq with its legitimate, democratically elected government? Whatever. I have confidence that the US voters will pay attention by election day.

No SOFA. No MoU. Nada.

Move along. You guys had it all your way, and you LOST. Get over it.

However, other commeners are correct, that the Washington post seems to implicitly assume that the only way to exert influence over allies in a geopolitically important region is lawless, strategy-less, counterproductive, and violent military occupation (aka mindless brute force). That is not very imaginative thinking. It is immoral, futile and bankrupt, and almost certainly doomed to failure, but alas not imaginative.

"How many U.S. troops, exactly, constitutes an "occupation" of Iraq? Apparently, it's something between the unknown number Obama refers to as a "residual force" and the number currently present in the country. So what is it, to the nearest ten thousand or so? And whatever your answer is, how do you justify it? What criteria define an "occupation" rather than just a "military presence?""

You are framing this incorrectly. This isn't about troops levels, that is a related tangent. This is about allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit. That means making its own oil laws, creating its own oil deals, holding elections if it likes, continuing its burgeoning relationship with Iran, etc. Yours is the brand of stupid that got us in this quagmire in the first place.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 9:01 PM

freddiemac,

You are framing this incorrectly. This isn't about troops levels,

It isn't? Then why do you people keep going on and on about the supposed importance of "withdrawing" our troops? You need to get your story straight.

that is a related tangent. This is about allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit.

Er, where may I find Obama's plan for "allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit," if that plan is supposed to differ significantly from the current situation or from McCain's plan for the governance of Iraq?

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:10 PM

Mixner's brand of stupid is so much deeper than just getting us into this quagmire. Mixner's brand of stupid continually insists that this isn't a quagmire, and that this slaughter is the product of humanitarian need.

Mixner's brand of stupid is so deep that he posits a system of laws whereby there is no effective mechanism for outlawing torture - never noticing that using his brand of stupid we would also have no definition of terrorism.

It would be nice if the James Robertson's and Mixner's and robert powell's and Will Allen's of the world merely represented their psychotic selves, but sadly we live in a world where there are more than four of these complete fucking morons.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:15 PM

"Then why do you people keep going on and on about the supposed importance of "withdrawing" our troops? You need to get your story straight."

No, you need to learn how to read. I never mentioned troop levels.

"Er, where may I find Obama's plan for "allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit," if that plan is supposed to differ significantly from the current situation or from McCain's plan for the governance of Iraq?"

Lazy, stupid, or mendacious?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Oh wait, you have proven that you have reading comprehesion problems, so it probably is hard for you.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 9:16 PM

See the demand for "precise definitions." Engaging this thickwitted tool will get you nowhere. This is exactly the same dumb-ass argument he uses to support torture.

"How many slaps before it becomes torture" isn't the product of a rational mind, it is a question asked by someone too cowardly and stupid to say outright "I don't care how much you torture someone, I am for it, I enjoy it, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you prosecute people for entertaining me."

No, the only correct course of action with trolls like Mixner is mockery. Continual reminders that he isn't nearly as smart as he imagines himself to be. That he isn't nearly as smart as a your garden variety slug.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:20 PM

My handle says it all.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 16, 2008 9:24 PM

Right, because for all the criticism Mixner levels against Obama for not citing exact numbers, no where does John McCain say exactly how many troops he needs to win or exactly how long it will take. In fact that sort of thinking is pretty dumb. There are too many intangibles. But this is the same "stay the course" mentality that lead us into this quagmire in the first place.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 9:25 PM

No, I claim that the political goals are being reached, which is why Matt is no longer bringing that subject up.

Posted by James Robertson

So can we leave then? If the point of the surge was to enable political reconciliation (conceded on both sides) and it is occurring, then why are we still there? If we can't what's the new goal post being established? And in that case, who is establishing them?

Posted by Hmmm.... | July 16, 2008 9:28 PM

No, you need to learn how to read. I never mentioned troop levels.

You mean, you didn't mention them in the particular post I responded to. Are we to understand that, unlike Obama and your fellow liberals, you don't particularly care how many troops we have in Iraq or how long we keep them there?

Lazy, stupid, or mendacious?

Clinically retarded, or just unwilling to read your own sources? What is Obama's plan for "allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit?" How does it differ from the current situation and from McCain's plan? What does Obama mean by "end this war?" What are his criteria for the war being at an "end?"

You have absolutely no idea, do you? Because Obama doesn't have any plan. All he has is waffle, and you fall for it.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:33 PM

Define "end"? Do we get the same amount of time that hawks have gotten to define "victory"? Or do we have to hop to it now? Because really I'm still waiting to hear "victory" defined by someone, anyone, anywhere.

Posted by Hmmm.... | July 16, 2008 9:37 PM

"You mean, you didn't mention them in the particular post I responded to."

Yes, because you clearly were responding to something I wrote and accused me personally of needing to get my "story straight". I think we have our answer: mendacious.

"Are we to understand that, unlike Obama and your fellow liberals, you don't particularly care how many troops we have in Iraq or how long we keep them there?"

I am not a liberal. However, to answer your question, troops levels and length of stay is a policy that should be evaluated by many factors, one of which is the desire on the part of the Iraqi government to have troops or not, and at what levels.

What is McCain's plan for "allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit?" How does it differ from the current situation and from Obama's plan? What does McCain mean by "end this war?" What are his criteria for the war being at an "end?"

You have absolutely no idea, do you? Because McCain doesn't have any plan. All he has is waffle, and you fall for it.

Though I wouldn't rule out stupid.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 9:41 PM

Want some specific definitions of "victory"? Try this:

In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 9:49 PM

Define "end"?

No, if you think you know what Obama means by "end this war," tell us what he means by it, and how you know what he means.

You don't have a clue, do you? You don't even really care. The reason Obamabot is such an appropriate label for so many of Obama's supporters is that their enthusiasm is so obviously the product of uncritical fanboy devotion rather than any kind of serious intellectual inquiry.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:50 PM

McCain, Bush, Mixner, and the rest of the pro-slaughter crowd don't have a definition of "victory" because they care about neither the Iraqi lives they have destroyed nor the American lives they have squandered for no particular reason excepting vanity.

Well, that's not really fair. Bush went to war because being a wartime President greatly increases your likelihood of winning the election.

As Davis X Machina has pointed out the war on "Iraq is the world's most expensive campaign commercial."

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 16, 2008 9:53 PM

freddiemac,

Yes, because you clearly were responding to something I wrote and accused me personally of needing to get my "story straight".

Not you personally, but you Obama supporters in general. You're the first one I've come across who has asserted that "this isn't about troop levels." Apparently, in stark contrast to your fellow Obamabots, you don't think it's particularly important how many troops we keep in Iraq or for how long. Welcome to John "100 years" McCain.

What is McCain's plan for "allowing Iraq to govern itself as it sees fit?" How does it differ from the current situation and from Obama's plan? What does McCain mean by "end this war?" What are his criteria for the war being at an "end?"

I don't know. I haven't said anything about McCain's plan. I'm attacking you for mindlessly supporting Obama over McCain when you obviously don't even know what Obama's plan for Iraq is even roughly, let alone how that plan differs from McCain's. The one relatively clear thing Obama has said about his plans for Iraq--his desire to withdraw most troops (or, at least "all combat brigades") within 16 months--you just deemed relatively unimportant.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 10:04 PM

Another little dramatic play:

Normal Person: Yes, I'm going to cut my cable bill by dropping the premium channels and only keeping the basic lineup.

Nixmer: So exactly how much will the basic lineup cost?

Normal Person: Actually, I don't know.

Nixmer: Hah! See, you aren't really serious about cutting your cable bill! Nixmer wins! Nixmer wins!

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 10:14 PM

"Not you personally, but you Obama supporters in general."

"You need to get your story straight."

A mendacious contradiction right there. You must be a conservative, no?

"You're the first one I've come across who has asserted that "this isn't about troop levels." Apparently, in stark contrast to your fellow Obamabots, you don't think it's particularly important how many troops we keep in Iraq or for how long. Welcome to John "100 years" McCain."

Generalization might not be your friend. But I want no part of bomb Iran McCain. He is easily the lesser of two evils.

"I don't know. I haven't said anything about McCain's plan. I'm attacking you for mindlessly supporting Obama over McCain when you obviously don't even know what Obama's plan for Iraq is even roughly, let alone how that plan differs from McCain's."

No, you are attacking me for attacking Fred's assertion that the US needs a heavy hand in Iraq in order to ensure that oil flows steadily, and that other positions are "ahistorical". You don't even understand what YOU wrote, let alone what I wrote or believe to be true. I'm beginning to lean back towards stupid.

"The one relatively clear thing Obama has said about his plans for Iraq--his desire to withdraw most troops (or, at least "all combat brigades") within 16 months--you just deemed relatively unimportant."

One thing he said that is fairly clear is "Barack Obama will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report."

Conservatives have constantly poo-pooed the idea of using diplomacy to come to a detente with Iraq's neighbors, or that Obama should have diplomatic relations with Iran without conditions. I disagree.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 10:15 PM

Mixner opposes a plan about which he knows nothing and wants to know nothing and supports a war about which he knows nothing and wants to know nothing.

A perfect idiot.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 16, 2008 10:17 PM

freddiemac,

Want some specific definitions of "victory"?

No, I don't want "some definitions." I want to know what you mean by "victory" in the context of Iraq. But let's examine the things you list anyway....

An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

We're already doing those things. Sounds like we're already on our way to "victory."

In the medium term: An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security,

Rather vague, but check.

with a constitutional, elected government in place,

Check.

providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Also rather vague, but check.

In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

This all sounds pretty good to me, although you need to define some measurable benchmarks if these goals are to have a clear meaning. What evidence is there that Obama's "plans" for Iraq would be better at achieving these long-term goals than McCain's?

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 10:18 PM

Mixner,

That list is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1

Another check for stupid.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 10:21 PM

DTM - Awesome

May I add: "In February the sun set at 6:01, so, clearly the light you are seeing at 7:30 in June is pure fiction. Such nonsense, you clod!"

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 16, 2008 10:30 PM

freddiemac,

Generalization might not be your friend. But I want no part of bomb Iran McCain. He is easily the lesser of two evils.

McCain is the "lesser of two evils." So Obama is the greater of the two evils. And yet you favor the greater evil and "want no part" of the lesser one. If generalization is not my friend, making even vague sense is clearly not yours.

No, you are attacking me for attacking Fred's assertion that the US needs a heavy hand in Iraq in order to ensure that oil flows steadily, and that other positions are "ahistorical".

No, I'm attacking you for your support of Obama over McCain on Iraq, when you obviously don't even know what Obama's plan is, have denied the importance of the one relatively clear proposal Obama has made (withdrawing most troops within 16 months), and now, hilariously, claim to believe that McCain is the "lesser of two evils."

Conservatives have constantly poo-pooed the idea of using diplomacy to come to a detente with Iraq's neighbors

Your unsubstantiated assertions about unnamed "conservatives" are irrelevant. The issue here is Obama's and McCain's plans for Iraq. The idea that McCain is against diplomacy is nonsense. From his campaign website:

In countless areas of international security, from Afghanistan to Haiti to proliferation, our common interests require common action. Sen. Obama's take-it-or-leave-it approach to dealing with America's friends would not rebuild the alliance relationships we need. On my watch, America will listen to the views of our democratic allies. When we believe action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

But don't let what the man actually says get in the way of your carved-in-stone prejudices and preconceptions.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 10:36 PM

freddiemac,

That list is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1

And you endorse it, right? Or were you just quoting "some specific definitions of victory" that you yourself reject? In which case, we're back to the question of what you mean by victory in Iraq.

The more you try to articulate any clear position on Iraq, let alone defend it with arguments and facts, the more confused and incoherent you become.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 10:42 PM

McCain is the "lesser of two evils."

Typo, meant Obama is the lesser evil.

"No, I'm attacking you for your support of Obama over McCain on Iraq"

Again, you are so stupid you don't know what I wrote:

"Hilarious! You know what is ahistorical? Arguing for a continued occupation of Iraq. You know what the British did? They left Iraq. And then? Then Iraq started pumping oil. In fact, if our goal is as Fred states and to get Iraqi oil, the best way to do that is to leave. Sometimes the stupidity of conservatives is breathtaking."

You immediately took issue with the term "occupation" and made false assumptions about my views on Obama, Iraq, etc. Basically you are stupid.

"The idea that McCain is against diplomacy is nonsense."

Well, if you knew how to read you might have read this: "On my watch, America will listen to the views of our DEMOCRATIC allies." This excludes Iran, idiot.

"But don't let what the man actually says get in the way of your carved-in-stone prejudices and preconceptions."

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 10:50 PM

How much bullshit will I produce tomorrow? You don't know, do you? I win!

Posted by Shitstir | July 16, 2008 10:51 PM

"And you endorse it, right? Or were you just quoting "some specific definitions of victory" that you yourself reject? In which case, we're back to the question of what you mean by victory in Iraq."

It is hilarious that you deride Obama as being too nebulous over details of his Iraq policy and then deride Bush's victory plan for the exact same thing. If I told you this was Bush's plan you would have lionized his grasp of specificity. But since you were ignorant and assumed it was my view, you derided it as being too vague and lacking details. Even the current CiC would not have enough details to mollify you. You are a pathetic idiotic troll who doesn't even understand his own words, let alone the point of view of any of the salient views on Iraq (Bush, Obama, McCain). I'd put in more digs for you being stupid, ignorant, mendacious, etc. but it is flogging a dead horse. Your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty was exposed.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 10:56 PM

"The more you try to articulate any clear position on Iraq, let alone defend it with arguments and facts, the more confused and incoherent you become."

I'm not trying to articulate a clear position on Iraq. I don't have to. I'm not the commander in cheif, though apparently he doesn't have a clear position on Iraq either.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 11:00 PM

So, after looking over the list of things that are now defining "victory" and noting our success there, I repeat an earlier question: can we leave then? Or is there further reason to stay? I concede progress and success on all fronts, so can we go?

Posted by Hmmm.... | July 16, 2008 11:04 PM

It is hilarious that you deride Obama as being too nebulous over details of his Iraq policy and then deride Bush's victory plan for the exact same thing.

It is hilarious that you pretend I wrote statements that are the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. What part of "We're already doing those things. Sounds like we're already on our way to victory" and "Check" and "This all sounds pretty good to me" don't you understand?

You are a pathetic idiotic troll who doesn't even understand his own words,

You are a monumentally ignorant fool who cannot string together more than half a dozen sentences without contradicting himself and who clearly knows virtually nothing about the plans and policies of the candidate he supports. You really are the epitome of mindless, robotic fanboy enthusiasm for Obama.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 11:14 PM

It's interesting to see how the Iraq debate is evolving during this election campaign. The defenders of the war are gradually settling, in unashamed fashion, on the bald imperialist rationale for the war: the need to exert direct control, through the use of brute, violent force and military intimidation, on the supposedly sovereign countries of a strategically important region, and on the economy of its vital resource.

John McCain could hardly have been clearer this past week. His message is that Maliki possibly doesn't really want us to leave, but that in the event that he does want us to leave, he can go fuck himself. McCain holds that we are obviously in Iraq for ourselves, not for the Iraqis, and we are going to stay as long as we damn well please.

This argument makes perfect sense to the hawks, because they know the war was always about the imperial impulse. The invasion and occupation were just an attempted hostile takeover of a strategically important and centrally located country, one which happens to be a crucial node in the world's petroleum economy.

Now at some point one might expect to hear from Democrats the message that the war was wrong because ... you know ... as we all learned in our youth, it is simply wrong and evil to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people to improve one's economic position, however real those economic gains might turn out to be. People who do this kind of thing are usually classified as "gangsters" and "criminals". But alas, Democrats of the center-left are still determined to run away from the moral issue, and still want to straddle and muddy the difference between anti-imperialism, on the one hand, and a more cautious, prudent, but equally amoral and ruthless imperialism on the other.

So once again, Matt wants to rest his case not on the evident moral outrage of this war of aggression, and its clearly unjustified taking of the lives of thousands of innocent people, it's maiming and immiseration of thousands of others, and the chasing of millions into refugee status, but instead on the more prudential consideration that this attempt to "micromanage" the oilworks of those faraway Muslim lands may produce some blowback, as it has in the past. This is how serious foreign policy practitioners argue after all: it's all about us and our "interests".

One problem with all this is that if in the end, some years hence, the economic benefits of the war for Americans exceed the costs of the war for Americans, these center libs are going to be left without a moral leg to stand on. We are going to be fighting for a generation over the moral legacy and historical memory of the Iraq War, just as we have over Vietnam, and I see the center libs backing themselves (and the rest of us, since we are in the same party) deeper and deeper into a corner of mere tactical and prudential second-guessing. In other words, through the case they are committing themselves to, they appear to be betting on blowback and strategic disaster, and are now invested in seeing to it that the outcome of the war is as bad as possible for the United States, so they can win the prudential argument in the final historical judgment.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 16, 2008 11:21 PM

You are a monumentally ignorant fool who cannot string together more than half a dozen sentences without contradicting himself and who clearly knows virtually nothing about the plans and policies of the candidate he supports. You really are the epitome of mindless, robotic fanboy enthusiasm for Bush's war on Iraq.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 16, 2008 11:23 PM

See handle for details.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 16, 2008 11:26 PM

Dan Kervick,

But alas, Democrats of the center-left are still determined to run away from the moral issue

Hardly surprising, considering that most of them supported this, ha ha, "war of aggression" when it was started, including two of the three leading Democratic candidates in this year's presidential election and a majority of Democratic Senators, not to mention a large majority of the American population. And prior to that, most Democrats had supported years of sanctions against Iraq under the Clinton Administration. Those sanctions are estimated by the U.N. to have killed 500,000 Iraqi children just by the mid-1990s. But I guess killing half a million children through malnutrition and disease doesn't matter. It's only when bombs are dropped that killing apparently becomes a moral issue.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 11:40 PM

"It is hilarious that you pretend I wrote statements that are the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. What part of "We're already doing those things. Sounds like we're already on our way to victory" and "Check" and "This all sounds pretty good to me" don't you understand?"

Do the words Vague and Also Vague mean anything to you? Once again you demonstrate that you don't even understand what YOU wrote, let alone what I wrote.

"who clearly knows virtually nothing about the plans and policies of the candidate he supports. You really are the epitome of mindless, robotic fanboy enthusiasm for Obama."

Except it is you that doesn't even understand Obama, McCain or Bush's plans and policies for Iraq. Of course I called Obama the lesser evil, therefore I am obviously a "fanboy", nevermind the fact that I did not once lionize him or his plans. See, you really are so stupid that you don't understand what I wrote, or what you wrote for that matter. Did you graduate from High School?

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 11:44 PM

Do the words Vague and Also Vague mean anything to you?

Sorry, non-responsive to the question. Again, what part of "We're already doing those things. Sounds like we're already on our way to victory" and "Check" and "This all sounds pretty good to me" don't you understand? Are you seriously under the impression that the phrase "This all sounds pretty good to me" is an expression of disapproval?

Except it is you that doesn't even understand Obama, McCain or Bush's plans and policies for Iraq.

No, not "except" that. For the umpteenth time Obama has failed to articulate any clear plan or policy for Iraq. His "plan" consists of endlessly repeating meaningless soundbites like "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." You don't know what his "plan" is any more than anyone else does, which is why your support for Obama over McCain is so irrational.

Of course I called Obama the lesser evil,

No, you called McCain the lesser evil. Maybe you meant to call Obama the lesser evil, but you didn't do that. And apparently, you haven't even noticed you didn't do that, despite the fact that your own statement was quoted verbatim back to you. And of course, you have failed to provide any clear answer to the question that started this, regarding your claim of an "occupation." You don't know what you believe, you don't know what the candidates believe, you're just utterly clueless about the whole issue. It's all just mindless devotion to Obama, unsupported by any knowledge, let alone any serious intellectual evaluation, of how Obama's plan for Iraq differs from McCain's.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:08 AM

Poor Mixner, he understands so little yet spouts off so much. It's actually cruel to subject him to facts, logic, and reason.

In spite of his total intellectual vacuity he has some grandiose notion that he's the smartest knife on the tree - never even realizing what a stupid goal that would be.

• Mindless support for torture
• Mindless support for butchering Iraqis
• Mindless support for Bush

It's a trifecta of idiocy.

• He can't define victory
• He can't understand what defines an occupation
• he can't even explain why we are in Iraq

Another trifecta of idiocy.

• He doesn't know Bush's position/plan
• He doesn't know Obama's position/plan
• He doesn't know McCain's position/plan

Yet another trifecta of idiocy.

In fact, we have a trifecta of trifectas of idiocy.

And will Mixner explain any of these things? Hardly, that would require he have some level of intelligence. Mixner just loves to posture as an intellectual by "asking tough questions." As freddiemac discovered, Mixner doesn't even know enough about the butchery he supports to recognize Bush's idiotically vague "goals."

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:09 AM

Not just an idiot, but actually insane.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 17, 2008 12:12 AM

But I guess killing half a million children through malnutrition and disease doesn't matter. It's only when bombs are dropped that killing apparently becomes a moral issue.

Killing via sanctions certainly does matter, Mixner, just as much as killing via bombs. And if you can find some place in my writing where I defend the Clinton administration sanctions policy, this point may be relevant as a retort or accusation of hypocrisy. But I did not defend that policy. Just because you are merely a partisan hack sticking up for your team, you shouldn't assume I am the same. I am perfectly aware of Democratic share of guilt in the misery inflicted upon Iraq over the past 15 years.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM

You are a poopyhead.

Posted by Not as stupid as not as stupid is insane, as not as stupid as insane is not as stupid as stupid is n | July 17, 2008 12:46 AM

Dan Kervick,

Killing via sanctions certainly does matter, Mixner, just as much as killing via bombs. And if you can find some place in my writing where I defend the Clinton administration sanctions policy, this point may be relevant as a retort or accusation of hypocrisy.

I wasn't talking about you personally. I was talking about the group you were discussing: "Democrats of the center-left." But in fact I would broaden it to Democrats in general. The ostentatious expressions of moral outrage that Democrats routinely issue regarding all the deaths caused by the War in Iraq were conspicuously absent during the 13 years of sanctions that preceded it. Yes, some on the left were vocally opposed to the sanctions, but the vast majority of Democrats either actively supported the sanctions or just didn't object very strongly to them. I do consider this rank hyporcisy. It's one reason why I don't take Democrats' complaints about all the casualties in Iraq very seriously: I don't believe they are remotely sincere. Where were they when Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright were systematically starving Iraqi children to death during the 1990s?

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:48 AM

So it's settled, then: Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, George W. Bush and Mixner are all grotesque moral monsters.

Works for me.

Posted by Timmah | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM

Poor Mixner, no defense against the fact that he supports torture and brutal unprovoked invasion, but then wraps himself in the dead Iraqis caused by sanctions - the same sanctions that morons like himself supported and claimed were necessary for the safety of the American people - so he lashes out at the height of his intellectual powers and

Calls those who dare defy the brilliance of Mixer: poopyhead.

Wow, that's some vocabulary you have there Mixner. It's stunning in its depth, breadth, and vacuity. That last one is a fancy word where I remind everyone just how skull-blisteringly stupid you really are.

Where's your illumination of the rationale for assaulting the Iraqi people. Your explanation for how murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis both through indiscriminate bombing (as in Shock and Awe) and malign neglect (c.f. five years of The Mixner Doctrine, also called "blind support for Bush's idiotic war") has been a boon to them?

No, we can expect nothing more than simpleminded namecalling from the sad rotting lump of offal that is Mixner. That and dumb ass questions that reveal the depths of his ignorance.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 17, 2008 1:17 AM

All of a sudden, Democrats that blindly parroted Obamessiah's line that Iraq was just a "distraction" from capturing 6 fugitives hiding in Pakistan that may require major war to "bring to trial" - are having 2nd thoughts.

What will gas prices go to if they run from one of the most geopolitically important countries in the world for remote, landlocked, oil-free mountain wastelands? And Iraq goes to hell? Go from 4.50 to 8, 10 bucks a gallon on the Democrats?

And why was it so wise to be like Obamessiah and line up & oppose every significant energy source being developed the last 30 years - in favor of wind, solar, and biodiesel? As the nation went from 28% dependent on foreign oil to now bleeding the blood out of our economy and job creation at 71% dependency? Was opposing all drilling, any new dam or nuke plant, any coal mine, no evil oil shale?
And are voters really ready to listen to Obamessiah and the Davos Elites and "block anything in the courts" environmentalists telling them that "we can't drill and quickly fix an energy crisis it took 30 years to create, so we best not drill anywhere at all, ever again...and we need to all get our cardigan sweaters and be patient for the 30 years it might take for beautiful solar power to do what we promised it would do in the 70s, or the next 60 years...

Posted by chris ford | July 17, 2008 1:53 AM

Democrats don't need a lecture from racist morons on, well, anything. And no surprise that such racist morons start by lying about the position of the Democrats.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 17, 2008 4:11 AM

Chris Ford - That is the stupidest crock of crap anyone has spouted so far. This board needs only one moron, and he is me. Please go away.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 5:16 AM

Bir Pirikette Sen Koy!
İnternetin Sosyallaştığı Site
http://www.piriketseverler.tr.gg
Thank You

Posted by PiriketSeverler | July 17, 2008 8:54 AM

Do people who cite the +500,000 killed due to the Iraq sanctions also acknowledge the validity of the Lancet studies about deaths due to the war? Do people who scorn Democrats for supporting the sanctions also scorn themselves for supporting the sanctions or is right-wing support for the sanctions of a different moral universe?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 17, 2008 8:54 AM

"Are you seriously under the impression that the phrase "This all sounds pretty good to me" is an expression of disapproval?"

Your approval or disapproval is irrelevant. Why would you assume that it is relevant?

"For the umpteenth time Obama has failed to articulate any clear plan or policy for Iraq."

And according to you neither has President Bush, which is why your "clear plan" rhetoric is a red herring. It is a bullshit argument, and my quotation of Bush's definition of victory and your responses proved just that.

"Maybe you meant to call Obama the lesser evil, but you didn't do that. And apparently, you haven't even noticed you didn't do that"

Wow, you really can't read can you? Let me quote myself "Typo, meant Obama is the lesser evil." Yet even more evidence of Mixner stupidity.

I already clearly enumerated why Obama's position on Iraq is superior to McCain's. Can't you read? I already shut down your piss-poor "diplomacy" argument. You didn't even bother to respond to that because you lost that one and even you could figure that out.

Mixner believes that Obama's plan on Iraq lacks substantive details, and therefore supporting it is mindless fanboyism. This, despite the fact that Bush's plan is also "vague" and lacking in details. I'm sure I could find some McCain quotes that would be too "vague" and lacking details, and as long as Mixner doesn't know that they are McCain's words they would be too "vague" also. Tell me something; what about McCain's plan is superior to Obama's plan? Mixner likes to resort to lame fallacies like red herrings "more details" or obtuse mischaracterizations, accusing anyone who dislikes McCain as a mindless supporter of Obama, even though I never said anything of the sort. Is this the best that conservatives can produce? Mixner, you lose.

Posted by freddiemac | July 17, 2008 9:13 AM

"Those sanctions are estimated by the U.N. to have killed 500,000 Iraqi children just by the mid-1990s. But I guess killing half a million children through malnutrition and disease doesn't matter. It's only when bombs are dropped that killing apparently becomes a moral issue. "
Posted by Mixner

That study was retracted by the authors in 1997.

Zaidi, S. "Child Mortality in Iraq." The Lancet 350 (1997): 1105.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2008 9:17 AM

"What will gas prices go to if they run from one of the most geopolitically important countries in the world for remote, landlocked, oil-free mountain wastelands? And Iraq goes to hell? Go from 4.50 to 8, 10 bucks a gallon on the Democrats"

Since the war gas has shot up in price over 100%. Therefore there is no logical reason to believe that a withdraw from Iraq will result in higher gas prices. Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion that gas prices will increase to 8 dollars a gallon post-withdraw? Of course not, because you are a conservative and conservatives are liars.

Posted by freddiemac | July 17, 2008 9:19 AM

It is amazing how Mixner ties himself in knots in every thread. It's embarrassing.

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2008 12:15 PM

Njorl,

That study was retracted by the authors in 1997. Zaidi, S. "Child Mortality in Iraq." The Lancet 350 (1997): 1105.

Er, no it wasn't. I suggest you read your own source more carefully.

Other studies also estimate the number of Iraqis killed by the sanctions in the hundreds of thousands. Richard Garfield (the same Richard Garfield who was a co-author of Lancet 1) estimated that, as a result of the sanctions:

the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000.

Garfield later estimated that by the end of 2000, that number had increased to 350,000. This was several years after the oil-for-food program had gone into effect. By 2002, Garfield's low estimate of the death toll caused by the sanctions was 400,000. And that's just deaths of children. The sanctions undoubtedly also caused the deaths of many adult Iraqis from malnutrition and lack of medicine, especially the sick and elderly.

Dennis Halliday, the first UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who was in charge of administering the oil-for-food program, resigned from his position in disgust in October 1998 so that he would be free to criticize the sanctions policy. He wrote:

I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide.

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, lasted two years on the job and also resigned in disgust. In 2001, von Sponeck decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions" reform intended to reduce the loss of life as follows:

What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen.

And he estimated that the sanctions were causing the deaths of 150 Iraqi children per day.

Where are all the condemnations from Democrats of this "genocidal" sanctions policy? Where are all the denunciations of Bill Clinton as a mass murderer of babies? Nowhere. Because you're all a bunch of hypocrites. You don't really give a damn about how many people died in Iraq under either Clinton or Bush. All you care about is seizing on any excuse to rationalize your pathological hatred of Bush and the GOP.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:37 PM

You embarrass yourself and you embarrass your mother.

Posted by Mixnermatosis | July 17, 2008 2:12 PM

Where are all the condemnations from Democrats of this "genocidal" sanctions policy? Where are all the denunciations of Bill Clinton as a mass murderer of babies? Nowhere.

Nonsense. There were lots of condemnations of the sanctions AT THE TIME. Most Peace groups aren't like Republicans.

While you're busy with the mockery, where did you stand on sanctions? I doubt if you could prove it, since you post anonymously, but you could at least try to come up with a whopper that allows you to condemn the sanctions and condone the war deaths.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 17, 2008 3:56 PM

Nonsense. There were lots of condemnations of the sanctions AT THE TIME.

Nonsense. The vast majority of Democrats either actively supported the sanctions, or didn't care enough about all the Iraqi children Clinton was killing to make any kind of serious protest at all. And you're still letting him off the hook. Where are all the Democrats arguing now that Clinton should be villified as a mass killer of babies, or even making any kind of serious criticism of his record on Iraq at all? Far from attacking him, Democrats generally lionize Clinton as an honorable former President and elder statesman of the Democratic Party. The sheer hypocrisy is nauseating.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 6:39 PM

define "mixner."

I'll go with "douche bag."

Posted by mencken | July 17, 2008 6:41 PM

"It is amazing how Mixner ties himself in knots in every thread. It's embarrassing."

No, that's his M.O. He's a troll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 17, 2008 9:54 PM

Mixner, since you keep ducking the question, it seems unavoidable that your scorn is directed at some Democrats for doing something you approve of.

Wotta maroon.

The sheer hypocrisy is nauseating.

Uh huh.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 17, 2008 10:00 PM

qcxwjd clvpmio nzidlsgph xgda yfbrs hvcymerui zvkj

Posted by zhpqx yvdieo | July 24, 2008 5:57 AM