July 7, 2008

"Sorry to be crude, but does the NYT realize that we may be at the point where reports of military success in Iraq help Obama..."

"... (because stability enables the rapid pullout he seeks) while reports of contiuing turmoil and difficulty help McCain (by raising doubts that U.S. forces can be safely withdrawn in the next few years)?"

Mickey Kaus, wondering when the NYT will get around to reporting on the great success in Mosul.

52 comments:

Original Mike said...

Mickey Kaus, wondering when the NYT will get around to reporting on the great success in Mosul.

My bet is they won't, just on "principle".

Doyle said...

Conservatives have been saying Iraq has been a huge success since 2003. Why do they still want it treated as news?

MadisonMan said...

Good news doesn't sell newspapers.

Bissage said...

Success is success and the difference in advantage to McCain versus Obama is a thread too fine for ordinary minds to disentangle.

When did McCain promise to keep troops in Iraq for no good reason?

Fen said...

Dolye: Conservatives have been saying Iraq has been a huge success since 2003.

Liar.

downtownlad said...

Doyle is a liar. Conservatives said they WON in 2003. i.e. "Mission accomplished"

I'm supposed to get about Al Queada being defeated in Iraq? But Al Queada was never even in Iraq. They are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We're supposed to be helping the good guys over in Iraq, but I have no clue who the good guys even are. It's certainly not the current government which is backed by Iran. . .

downtownlad said...

Oil is down today and the stock market is up. Quick - it's time to write about how things are turning around with the economy, and how the Republicans are managing the economy so well, and it's a start of a bull market, and oil is obviously on its way back to $20 a gallon.

Hurry up - might change in five minutes.

John said...

"but I have no clue who the good guys even are."

That is only because you are an idiot. For people with an IQ above that of a fence post, when one side is mindlessly killing civilians by blowing themselves up, they are not the good guys.

Further, if the Iraq is in the tank for Iran, why did they spend most of the spring waging war against Iran's favorite cleric? Even if they are, who says Iran is the bad guys? When did Iran become the bad guys? All I ever hear about Iran is how they are peaceful and do not have a nuclear program and are just being bullied by war mongering neocons. It is odd how whenever the subject of Iran comes up with regard to their nuclear program, Iran is a peaceful country being forced to war by that evil George Bush. But when Iran comes up in the context of Iraq, they are the force of evil that only Saddam could save us from but now thanks to Bush are dominating Iraq.

Fen said...

Conservatives said they WON in 2003. i.e. "Mission accomplished"

No. The mission to topple Saddam Hussein was accomplished. Or did you expect the sailors of USS Lincoln to fight MOUT ops against AQ while restoring the country's infrastructure?

Topple Saddam, leave Iraq and let Iran fill the power vacum... that was what the Left wanted?

Roger J. said...

It does appear that Iraq has managed to defeat the insurgency--including the "mahdi army." The Belmont Club, as always, has a lot of detail on the status of operations. Assuming they have indeed done that, it is a major victory and vitiates AQI and the jihadists generally.

will they, the Jihadists, be able to carry out suicide attacks? Certainly--not much you can do against those tactics. But an Iraqi success against jihadists, is going to hasten political reconciliation, alrerady well along, and have some major regional implications. Time will tell, but I suspect a lot of regional Arab states (which does NOT include Iran) are watching.

And, I suspect, there will be a SOFA that dramatically reduces US presence--the question is, will that happen before or after the US election.

downtownlad said...

I change my mind. Obviously this war was a huge success and brought peace and happiness to all Iraqis.
After all- today's article in the paper talks about how Iraq is now "calm".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07baquba.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

They sound so happy. I'm sure they're so joyous that the Americans came to free them.

Choey said...

>>but I have no clue who the good guys even are.<<

I'm sure glad you're not on our side.. I hate to have to deal with idiots on my own team..

downtownlad said...

Today - Female bomber kills 9 in Iraq.
Yesterday - Two students kidnapped north of Mosul
Yesterday - Two bodies found in Baghdad
Yesterday - Women's body found in Musayab
Yesterday - Roadside bomb kills one in Haswa
Yesterday - Baghdad car bomb kills six, wounds 14
Yesterday - Seven killed in Iraq bombing in Diyala

When's the last time Fox News reported ANY news like this?

Doyle said...

The real problem with the Iraq War isn't all the dead soldiers, dead Iraqis, or the huge outlay of taxpayer dollars to corrupt private enterprises.

It's that Mickey Kaus can't find articles about how great things are going now in the New York Times.

You people are such clowns.

downtownlad said...

712 civilians killed in June. And that's just the ones that there were press releases for.

Really - define success for me. Because Mickey Kaus is obviously describing success as "only" 712 civilian deaths a month.

My standards are a little different. To each his own.

Fen said...

It's that Mickey Kaus can't find articles about how great things are going now in the New York Times.

No, the problem is that the NYTs and people like you and Dolye are dishonest about what's happening in Iraq.

That, and the fact that all of you appear disappointed that more Iraqi's aren't being murdered to sustain your Grey Whore's narrative.

Fen said...

My standards are a little different.

Ha. This should be fun: what are your standards for success in Iraq?

Lemme guess, you expected a transformation into a western democracy the day after Saddam was toppled?

gophermomeh said...

No Fen, chaos.

MadisonMan said...

Well, then, Mission Accomplished!

George said...

It is because of Sen. Obama's patient, yet forceful, opposition to the war that our success has been achieved.

Without his persistent, quiet application of diplomatic pressure on the Bush administration, we would still be in a quagmire.

Once he's elected, he'll send all those troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, as he has promised, and we can focus on winning the war there.

And in Pakistan, too.

Rich B said...

Not sure where DTL gets his stats, but don't see 712 civilian deaths in the Iraq index - http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

What I do see is an astounding turnaround. And an increasingly shrill opposition here in the good old USA.

The Drill SGT said...

Mickey apparently doesn't recognize that the NYT cares more about hating Bush and all of his acts than it does on helping Pbama beat it's endorsed candidate, John McCain :)

BDS trumps Obamamania for them.

Fen said...

MadisonMan: Well, then, Mission Accomplished!

MM, no one is claiming that. You've never been prone to distorting your opponent's argument to craft a strawman. Don't let Doyle and DTL start infecting you now.

Middle Class Guy said...

downtownlad said...
My standards are a little different. To each his own.


Because you have none.

MadisonMan said...

Fen, I was replying to gophermomeh? If she was expecting chaos, that's certainly what happened. Ergo, Mission Accomplished! I don't think it's now quite so chaotic as it has been -- and it's certainly not as bleak as some might argue (nor as rosy as others might argue).

Doyle said...

I give Fen credit for attempting the "No one said Mission Accomplished" defense.

Sure, continuing to defend this bloody fiasco at all requires a certain indifference to being thought a world class moron, but taking that tack requires real fortitude.

You're to be commended, Fen. You're even crazier than most wingnuts.

Fen said...

MM: Fen, I was replying to gophermomeh?

Yah, I see that now. Sorry, my mistake.

[...]

Doyle: I give Fen credit for attempting the "No one said Mission Accomplished" defense.

Just as I give you "credit" for being unable to refute it.

Source it or admit you're a liar.

The closest I've heard is that we're "rounding the corner", couched with warnings not to start celebrating.

Dolye: You're even crazier than most wingnuts.

And the best argument you can muster is a feeble ad hom attack. Thanks for making my point for me.

Zeb Quinn said...

Sorry, but I'm not buying the premise that good news from Iraq helps Obama. Reminding the folks that the guy with zero foreign expertise and zero military expertise was 180 degrees wrong on an issue of both goes down in the ledger as a bad thing. The only news from Iraq which would help Obama is news the effort there being a chaotic quagmire. But that's not the news.

Doyle said...

Okay I'm going back on vacation from Althouse and the intellectually and morally crippled fanbase she, for whatever reason, attracts.

I'll be back on November 4 to hear the screams and lamentations of your women.

Terry said...

Downtownlad, we know you would obviously prefer a return to the good old days of Saddam and his son's for the Iraqi people. You say 731 civilians died last month in Iraq. I guess that is just not enough for you. Because that is a significant improvement over the ten plus years of Saddam's reign. Estimates range from one million or more killed by Saddam while he was in power. That's a run-rate of about 833 per month that you would prefer to see being killed.

From the Iraq Foundation:

"Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein."

Fen said...

Doyle: Okay I'm going back on vacation from Althouse

"Bravely ran away"

And you'll be back. Debasing yourself on these forums is part of your therapy.

Henry said...

For context, note that today's New York Time's story is about the "brittle calm and war scars" of Baquba. It represents fairly typical ground-level reporting:

in late June, a New York Times reporter and photographer traveled to the provincial capital, driving in old Iraqi cars with an interpreter to see how much had changed...

The result is a detailed, observant report that is safely detached from strategic trends.

What Kaus is critiquing isn't whether or not the Times reports on successes in Iraq, but that they don't even follow through on events they say are important.

Two weeks ago they mention a "major security operation" in Mosul that apparently has such great importance that they're compelled to send reporter Alissa Rubin off on a sightseeing drive up a different river.

It's as if Times sports columnist Dave Anderson reported about an upcoming "major football game" involving the Giants and Patriots, and followed up Monday morning with tennis news.

Original Mike said...

I'll be back on November 4 to hear the screams and lamentations of your women.

I always pegged you for a barbarian.

Methadras said...

The essay neglects a very glaring distinction. The first is that if Obama wants an early pullout he will have to acknowledge it as a victory and only so because we carried the lions share of assuring victory. If he can't do that, then anything else he says is pointless. An acknowledgment of this kind is the only benefit to Obama, nothing else will count or matter.

Hey, DTL, you insipid moron. I'm coming for you next.

Roger J. said...

Does anyone really care what the NYT thinks about anything? It seem clear that the Iraqis are getting the job done, the surge appears to have facilitated that success, and Iraq is moving to accomplishment of all the benchmarks. Those appear to be the facts on the ground there.

Seems to me that Senator Obama ought to be hoping that the SOFA agreement calls for a quick redeployment of US forces and a limited role for them post new year--Gets him off the hook. And Senator McCain certainly appears to have assessed the surge better than anyone on the left.

Mr. Forward said...

"But Al Queada was never even in Iraq."
downtownlad

"...I have no clue..""
downtownlad

"American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

ABut Al Queada was never even in Iraq.But Al Queada was never even in Iraq.fter being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Right Al Qaida was never in Iraq and Sadam had no access to WMD...well except for the 550 tons of yellow cake uranium
Or the chemical weapons smuggled into Syria before the invasion in 2003.

Other than that....nothing to see here...move along.

Fen said...

downtownlad: But Al Queada was never even in Iraq.

My Stupid Neighbor

Last month a tree fell on my house. After clearing the rubble away, I noticed that the fallen tree was diseased with some kind of fungal rot. I soon discovered that other trees standing around my house were likewise infected. So I cut them down. My stupid neighbor complains that my actions were "unprovoked".

garage mahal said...

That yellowcake was known about since the first Gulf war by the UN and the IAEA. They also had tons of uranium, legally. The material they possesed didn't pose any imminent threats, they didn't have the technology to do anything with it.

Fen said...

Why did they have it to begin with?

Fen said...

And why did we find Iraqi scientists working in Lybia on a clandestine nuclear arms program?

garage mahal said...

Libya has a crazy dictator that had much more nasty stuff than Iraq ever had, more advanced capabilities, and yet we didn't invade them. We negotiated with them and they gave it all up. Isn't that more preferable than a neverending occupation? We offered them what every other country in that region wants; security.

XWL said...

Mickey Kaus never seemed like the sort of gentleman who would be sorry to be crude.

I'm shocked.

As far as the NYT stuff, not so shocking.

The current preferred narrative does seem to be, 'sure, Obama was dead wrong about the surge, and stil doesn't believe victory is possible in Iraq, but the fact that we are succeeding means that his sort of defeatism won't be costly, so go ahead vote for the guy who will make you feel oh so good about voting for him'.

al said...

Libya has a crazy dictator that had much more nasty stuff than Iraq ever had, more advanced capabilities, and yet we didn't invade them. We negotiated with them and they gave it all up

Libya became interested in negotiation after OIF started - not before. Sometimes watching a neighboring country get destroyed can convince one that they might be on the wrong path...

garage mahal said...

Al
Here is some good reading on this from globalsecurity.org.

Fen said...

Isn't that more preferable than a neverending occupation?

Negotiation is always preferable. But it takes two to tango. Are you saying that 12 years and 14 UN resolutions weren't enough? What do you do when your opponent is not negotiating in good faith, simply drawing it out to gain space and time?

Noticed you dodged my two questions, so here they are again:

1) Why did Saddam have yellowcake to begin with?

2) Why did we find Iraqi scientists working in Lybia on a clandestine nuclear arms program?

Cedarford said...

Got to agree with Al, Garage.

An Egyptian diplomat wryly observed back in 2005 that before Libya came clean and caughed up it's whole nuke program and the AQ Khan network and renounced terrorism - that while negotiations had gone on for years and intensified with the discovery of nuke weapons materials on a freighter bound for Libya, Colonel Quadaffi had been "quite obstinant".
Then, observing the two-week American smashing of Iraq's military and all its leaders on the run, "Plus him knowing your whole 4th ID was in and around Egypt transiting the Suez and were no longer needed in Iraq and 1/5th of your AF and a carrier was in region...."
" Let us just say that had a wonderful focusing effect on our friend and dear neighbor's mind that it was in his interest to conclude a settlement ASAP."

***************
Meanwhile, unfortunately, because I rather would like if it worked and we didn't have to have a stick behind the world's dimplomatic community and the lawyers that boast that "international law" eliminates the need for force in almost every circumstance, probably the 250th or 250th "Peace and Democracy" vigil over the last ten years has been staged in Europe to show Mugabe that he is a poopy-head and that he urgently needs to reform and listen to Human Rights lawyers. Then the moral clout of the Italian Parliament came in with a resolution deploring Mugabe's election "irregularities".

Wow, European Soft Power on display in all its morally persuasive, intimidating glory!!

Just like Ingrid Betancourt, beneficiary of 4 years of futile negotiations between France and Columbia to give FARC concessions to release the dual-citizen Lefty activist. Feminists in France held vigils in several cities over the years. Dopers said they wouldn't buy Columbian grass. She was made Citizen of Paris. She was celebrated in posters, talk of a movie - all to let FARC guerillas know French were sad, concerned, and just wanted FARC to see reason and the moral power of European Law.

Then the Columbians and Americans trained up a few good, hard men and gave them the perfect cover - use a helicopter used to ferry Human Rights Lawyers friendly with FARCs hard-left struggle to FARC bases, for years.

Imagine how fast Zimbabwe would be cleaned up if we sent a modern military of 30,000 or so soldiers from craven Europe or 50,000 OAS soldiers with dispensation to loot whatever they wanted to go in and kill every Mugabe follower at or above the rank of Major or a senior official in his Political Party that started out as terrorist gangsters.

Unless Mugabe and follower fled.

This used to be the way we eliminated African thugs. No more, now the West has the facade of moral superiority in Elitist Lawyers running law and Ministries, the USA is sick of picking up the UN or Europe or dysfunctional African's slack - so it lets the Rwandas, Somalias, Congos, and Zimbabwes just play out.

ron st.amant said...

I certainly think the latest message from Iraq's leadership, citing a desire to have a date certain for withdrawal included in their security deal with the US, can't hurt Obama's policy. It would nullify right-wing criticism about timetables when they are asking for one.

al said...

Here is some good reading on this from globalsecurity.org.

For me - it's hard to take an analysis of a countries action seriously when it's based on editorials.

This analysis is based on 55 editorials from 25 countries over December 21 - 24 2003.

An opinion (the analysis) based on opinions (the editorials). :-)

While both views are represented in the data presented it's my opinion that Momar realized that maybe coming clean was a good idea after Saddam's army was destroyed. Were there negotiations going on and did they help? No doubt. But having a couple of hundred thousand coalition troops and a couple of US Carrier groups in the neighborhood that might just want to continue blowing stuff up - well that might have pushed him in the right direction.

Freder Frederson said...

This used to be the way we eliminated African thugs.

Actually Cedarford, this is exactly the way we ended up with Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe--not to mention the Shah of Iran, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein.

You are such a racist moron.

Freder Frederson said...

Further, if the Iraq is in the tank for Iran, why did they spend most of the spring waging war against Iran's favorite cleric?

Al Sadr is hardly "Iran's favorite cleric". Sistani, who is much closer to the Maliki government, is much more friendly to the Iranians than Sadr.

The Exalted said...

on this, like on everything else, mickey kaus is wrong.

good news from iraq plays to mccain's benefit, not obama's, which i would think would be obvious to children.

thats his premise is taken seriously here does not suprise me.