One of these guys is either delusional or a liar

[Darwin]

Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh Tuesday:

CHENEY: On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now... If you look at the general overall situation, theyre doing remarkably well.

James Baker, as reported by the BBC Wednesday (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20601699-5006506,00.html):

FORMER US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported today.

Clearly one of these people is either lying or delusional to the point of being clinically insane. So who is correct and who is a deceitful lunatic: Cheney or Baker?

[Perd Hapley]

Just going from the two statements you quoted:  You don't think both statements could be true at the same time?

[Darwin]

How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time? As the fighting nears the end of its fourth year, October is on track to be the deadliest month yet for U.S. forces. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now fleeing their homes because of sectarian violence. Basic services still haven't been restored for the general population. In what parallel universe could this situation possibly be considered as going "remarkably well"?

[richyoung]

How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?

Considering the time intervals involved, the long history of tribal/secarian violence, and the total LACK of any tradition or history of democracy, there is NO CONTRADICTION between "remarkably well" (purple thumbs and all) with "helluva mess", (especially in the 5 provinces that are the big problem right now...)

As the fighting nears the end of its fourth year, October is on track to be the deadliest month yet for U.S. forces.

That's because the Air Force and artillery can't give you as much help in fighting insurgents as they can a conventional army like Iraq's, so we are now forced to root out the bad guys at bayonet point in buildings, instead of bambarding them in batalion lots at a distance.  Of course it will be "deadlier" unti lthe task can be handed off to LOCAL security forces - which coincidentally is what the insurgents are TARGETING, to DELAY that hand-off, (po;lice stations, recruiting stations, etc.)  To quit now would be to REWARD that tactic with sucess.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now fleeing their homes because of sectarian violence.

And this is worse than being killed by thousands each month by Sadaam...how?

Basic services still haven't been restored for the general population.

...and under Sadaam, whole regions were deliberately DENIED basic services like water, electricity and sewage as political punishment for decades.  At least the current situation is understood to be temporary - might have been fixed sooner, but everyone hollered about no-competition contracts going to Honeywell, Haliburtan, and Brown and Root - you can't have it BOTH ways.

In what parallel universe could this situation possibly be considered as going "remarkably well"?

In one where you aren't pimping for Saint Hillery and Comrade Pilosi....

[Darwin]

Care to wager some real money that I am right and you are wrong on all of the above, Rich Young?

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

In one where you aren't pimping for Saint Hillery and Comrade Pilosi....

Gotta love that.  Anyone who doesn't think we should be in Iraq, or thinks our leadership totally screwed it up MUST want Hillary and Pelosi in office.

[Darwin]

I just ignored that part of Richyoung's post. If you search his posts, you'll see that he seldom fails to sink to the level of name calling and personal insults. He has to resort to such pathetic tactics because he's almost always arguing from a position that is impossible to back up with logic and reason.

[The Rabbi]

Believe it or not I think RichYoung is right.

There is no contradiction necessarily.  When was the last time Baker was in Baghdad?  I'll bet if he had been there prior to the war he would have found "a hell of a mess."  Yes, Baghdad doesnt look like Paris or Prague.  Big surprise.  Their infrastructre has been a mess for 20 years or more.  Their political situation has been chaotic forever.  Under Saddam it was just held in check by fear.  Want to go back to that?
People were predicting all kinds of mayhem and it hasnt happened.

And Darwin's solution is what?  Pull out?  That will sure help everyone.  Oh sorry.  It isnt a withdrawl or retreat, it is a "strategic repositioning."

[Darwin]

What no one is saying is that we have only one of two logical responses. Either we make every effort to pacify Iraq and prevent all out civil war, or we get out immediately. The first option would take a massive investment in money and manpower, most likely requiring a draft if we are to build our troop strength up to a size where we can smother the insurgency. Zinni's original estimate of 300,000 troops might have been adequate prior to our bungling of the occupation in 2003-2004, but now it would take a much larger force to quell the tremendous chaos that we have created in the country. And right now our military is too depleted from nearly four years of war to produce that kind of manpower without a draft. Most importantly, the first option would require the political will of the American people, and that flat-out is not going to happen.

If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy? All the while the civil war continues to build and violence grows increasingly worse by the month? What the hell kind of plan is that? If we are not going to make the hard choices needed to win this thing, which we are not, then do we continue to throw lives down this insane rabbit hole, plodding along as we have been for nearly four years?

The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

Either way doesn't much matter to me much. Neither side holds any moral high ground as far as I'm concerned because neither side has had the fortitude to tell the American people what the real choices are. Instead both sides have chosen to play politics with the lives of our soldiers, which to me is unforgivable.

[HankB]

I'm old enough to remember the over-emphasis placed on "body count" during the Vietnam war, and to appreciate that many of the reported numbers were bogus.

But I'm NOT seeing any CREDIBLE numbers AT ALL for dead bad guys in Iraq . . . if we're killing terrorists/insurgents/whatever at a rate that's 20xor 50x the rate that we're taking casualties, there may be light at the end of the tunnel . . . if the numbers are about even, that's a problem. A BIG problem.

Anyone have links to CREDIBLE numbers?

[wingnutx]

You can easily be in a helluva-mess and still be doing remarkably well under the circumstances.

I'm both on a pretty regular basis.

[The Rabbi]

What is the fallacy called when you posit only two options, the "either/or" fallacy?

Anyway.  I don't speak Arabic.  I haven't been to Baghdad, much less any other part of Iraq.  I dont know the leaders of the Parliament or the opposition.  I've never trained an Iraqi police squad or army unit.  I havent gauged the strength and determination of the opposition or their support among the civilian population.
But plenty of people have and the consensus of those people is not to pull out or send in massive numbers of troops.

[Darwin]

From what I've read, the situation on the ground is too dangerous to collect hard data on casualty numbers, whether those killed are bad guys, civilians caught up in crossfire, or victims of sectarian violence. This is more evidence that the situation has deteriorated badly since our initial "victory."

[richyoung]

What no one is saying is that we have only one of two logical responses. Either we make every effort to pacify Iraq and prevent all out civil war, or we get out immediately. The first option would take a massive investment in money and manpower, most likely requiring a draft if we are to build our troop strength up to a size where we can smother the insurgency.

Ah, the dlightful "only two options" gambit, in which one option is so unpleasant that the only LOGICAL choice is to impiment the "option" the discourser has already settled on in his mind.  And as usual, its FALSE - there are a whole WORLD of options:

1. Annex Iraq and make it an American possesion like Samoa.
2. Tell Puerto Rico it lost out on being the 51st atate - tough noogies.
3. Iraq - the REAL "palestinian Homeland".
4. Iraq - the new atomic proving grounds.
5.  Options 3 and 4 combined - two birds with one stone...
6.  Iraq - the new Kurdish homeland.

or, what we are doing:

Keep the peace as best as possible while traininghte Iraqi's themselves to take over as soon as possible.

Zinni's original estimate of 300,000 troops might have been adequate prior to our bungling of the occupation in 2003-2004,

..and just WHAT would you have done differently?

but now it would take a much larger force to quell the tremendous chaos that we have created in the country.

We didn't CREATE chaos in Iraq - chaos has been there ever since Islam split into various sects, and ever since hte Kurds and Persians have existed.  Granted, Sadaam kept the chaos down, by rithlessly exterminating anyone who got out of line,...but that also got the world the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War I and II, hundred of thousands of Kurds and other citizens killed...gee, suddenly the level of "chaos" now evident doesn't seem so bad...

And right now our military is too depleted from nearly four years of war to produce that kind of manpower without a draft.

Bullpucky. 3000 casualties is less than 3 battalions of troops.  Thats less than one battalion of loses a year - and we're NOT loosing a bunch of tanks, airplanes, or other heavy equipment.  Not to mention its better to fight them OVER THERE, than have parts of Manhattan leveled in terrorist acts.

Most importantly, the first option would require the political will of the American people, and that flat-out is not going to happen.

Don't bet on it.

If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy?

WWII has been over since 1945 - whats our "exit strategy" for the occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and Korea?  I'd like to know, 'cause as far as I can tell, we never left...

All the while the civil war continues to build and violence grows increasingly worse by the month? What the hell kind of plan is that? If we are not going to make the hard choices needed to win this thing, which we are not, then do we continue to throw lives down this insane rabbit hole, plodding along as we have been for nearly four years?

A false argument.  the new Iraq government will take over the task as it is capable.  It takes a while to replacce a destroyed army, police force, etc - especially when the existing personnel are unacceptable for one reason or another - See: Germany, Japan,...

The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option.

I missed it - when did James Baker get elected to any current position of power?

As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops,...

We are already withdrawing troops...

and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

Either way doesn't much matter to me much. Neither side holds any moral high ground as far as I'm concerned because neither side has had the fortitude to tell the American people what the real choices are. Instead both sides have chosen to play politics with the lives of our soldiers, which to me is unforgivable.

Please - enlighten us with WHY we should take your opinion seriously - relevant facts would include your age, education, profession, and just what, beside te mewlings of the Drive-By Media, you base this drivel on...

[richyoung]

"...the consensus of those people is not to pull out or send in massive numbers of troops."

This jibes with e-mail and such from co-workers and aquaintances in country, Rabbi.

[Darwin]

Richyoung, we will see very shortly which of us is correct. If you are correct, I will be pleased. I'm afraid that you couldn't be more wrong, but again, we shall see shortly, before the end of the year, I believe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Richyoung, we will see very shortly which of us is correct. If you are correct, I will be pleased. I'm afraid that you couldn't be more wrong, but again, we shall see shortly, before the end of the year, I believe.

Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end.  Reply in the form of objective, testable, and verifiable standards, so that come years end we'll be able to measure your prediction against reality.

[Darwin]

Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end.

Again, for those with a short attention span and/or other mental disorders:

The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Re: the topic...

Baker=politician.
Cheney=politician.
They are both lying.
As usual, the truth is somewhere between "We're doing great!" and "Holy crap it's a bloody mess!"

[Darwin]

Dasmi, what you say is true--both are politicians--but why on earth would Baker, a person who is so close to the Bush family that he has been described as the family consiglieri, lie at the president's expense? It makes no sense. None. Add the fact that Baker has a reputation as being one of the more honorable politicians living today, and his lying about this makes even less sense.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"...the consensus of those people is not to pull out or send in massive numbers of troops."

This jibes with e-mail and such from co-workers and aquaintances in country, Rabbi.

Agreed.  I know two former profs who took work contracts in Iraq about a year ago.  From what they describe, it appears that the US is doing remarkably well in most parts of the country.  Not all parts, of course, but the bulk of the country is passified and secure.  Most of the Iraqis my friends spoke to said their lives are better now than under Saddam.

The antiwar fanatics love to say that we've lost this war, or that we're about to lose it if we don't give up and go home immediately.  What they always fail to do is describe what it is about the situation, exactly, that indicates we're losing.  The insurgents have never managed to win a battle.  They've never managed to stop the democratic political process.  The've never managed to recapture territory they've lost.  There is NOTHING tangible to indicate that the insurgency is making any headway or progress towards their goals.  By contrast, Iraq and America have implimented a democratically supported constitution.  Iraq and America have instituted a democratically elected government.  The Iraqi people have defied all odds to vote in an election in massive numbers, with even greater voter turnout than in the US.  The Iraqi people defy the insurgents and terrorists every day in massive numbers, when they stand in lines to join the Iraqi police or army.  Much of IRaq is governed and secured by the Iraqis alone, without help from us.

And the antiwar nuts expect me to believe that we're getting our collevtive national ass handed to us by these insurgents?  Gimme a break.

The only thing the insurgents have managed to accomplish is to wrap the American left around their finger.

[The Rabbi]

How is that a response to Headless' question?  All I saw was general "disaster gloom and doom."

[Darwin]

I said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.

regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Please define exactly what sort of calamity you expect to see before years end.

Again, for those with a short attention span and/or other mental disorders:

The fact is that we are not going to do this either. James Baker has made it clear that "staying the course" is not an option. As soon as the election is over, we will begin withdrawing troops, and whatever it is that we fear will happen in our absence will happen. It will happen if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, in which case it will be given some kind of positive-sounding spin regardless of how disasterous the outcome, or it will happen if the Democrats take over, in which case the Administration will blame it all on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

OK, let me ask you again.  What sort of calamity do you predict will befall Iraq by years end?  

Don't tell me about what is and isn't an option (in Baker's mind) or about "whatever it is that we fear will happen".  I want a tangible prediction of what will happen and why, so that when that doesn't happen you'll be demonstrably proven wrong.  (Or, in the remote chance that you're right, you can come back and say "I told you so.")

Parotting sound bites form a politician do not constitute a tangible prediction.  Politicians are adept at using lots of words to speak nothing other than vauge and intangible gloom, which is always the other guy's fault.  Don't give me a politicians answer, give me a real man's answer.  Say straight up what you think will happen in Iraq by years end and why.

EDIT:  Looks like Rabbi beat me to it...

[Darwin]

said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.

What part of the above do you not understand?