☼ZeD

teeheehee

Welcome Taylor!

♥lOvE teh ZeD

Happy Cinco de Mayo Firepups!

Now to read welcome Taylor!

He’s on! He’s coming out of the right channel, and needs to come up 5 dBs!

Hey all. Sorry for the tech glitches today. But let’s get going…

So a question for you, Rand. What do you make of the Iraq conference that just ended?

hello? anyone here?

Hello, All!

Hey ghostman. We’re here!

tommy yum @ 7

He’s on! He’s coming out of the right channel, and needs to come up 5 dBs!

Taylor Marsh @ 8

Hey all. Sorry for the tech glitches today. But let’s get going…

So a question for you, Rand. What do you make of the Iraq conference that just ended?

a necessary step, but short on results. knowing that it was going to occur, rice should have laid the groundwork to make something happen

Ok, cool. A question for Mr. Beers: what do you make of the reports that we are having success with the Bedouin tribes out in Anbar?

Ghostman

But Rice didn’t talk to Iran. Tell us about the interesting news out of that hand off to underlings.

I’m out of the loop – been out in the garden – a quick synopsis of conference?

The story in today’s Washington Post about Iraqi doctors being held prisoner by their own government reminds me of a tactic that the Vietcong used. They would send trucks laden with supplies down the Ho Chi Minh trail.
To make sure that the drivers didn’t bail if there was an American bombing raid,
the V.C. would chain them to the steering wheels.

Seems that Mr. al-Maliki knows his history.

rand beers @ 12

tommy yum @ 7

He’s on! He’s coming out of the right channel, and needs to come up 5 dBs!

Taylor Marsh @ 8

Hey all. Sorry for the tech glitches today. But let’s get going…

So a question for you, Rand. What do you make of the Iraq conference that just ended?

a necessary step, but short on results. knowing that it was going to occur, rice should have laid the groundwork to make something happen

Rice never does which is why nothing happens whether it is Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran, Syria, or Lebanon.

Ghostman @ 13

Ok, cool. A question for Mr. Beers: what do you make of the reports that we are having success with the Bedouin tribes out in Anbar?

Ghostman

i think that we have be at this for a long time and the results remain slim. the administration points to it because they have so little to point to. if it were really a success then they should have been able to shut down al qaeda by now.

Conference:

An international conference on Iraq ended Friday without top-level meetings between the United States and Iran.

Iraqi officials had hoped senior diplomats from Iran and the U.S. would meet on the sidelines of the conference. There was instead an ambassador-level meeting.

From your website –

Task Force Reports: NSN is not a think tank but recognizes that important issues exist that the progressive national security community needs to address more closely. In these issue areas, NSN will put together more comprehensive policy task force reports that will aim to build consensus in the progressive national security community.

Very Nice!!

Taylor Marsh @ 14

But Rice didn’t talk to Iran. Tell us about the interesting news out of that hand off to underlings.

that’s right. only the ambassador and the state dept. coordinator talked to iranians. not a good start. someone reported this week that the state dept. was told by the iranians that there foreign minister wasn’t plugged in enough to talk to. Go figure.

Hi Rand,

Did you ever hear that they were considering installing Tariq Aziz later as a “strong man” if Maliki doesn’t cooperate? Tom Hayden was floating that around a while back.

Honestly, how “plugged in” do you have to be to get talks started where none existed before?

Kathryn in MA @ 15

I’m out of the loop – been out in the garden – a quick synopsis of conference?

a meeting of neighboring states and other arab countries to talk about stabilizing iraq and forgiving iraq’s debts to them. some forgiving, not much else resulted.

Taylor Marsh @ 19

Conference:

An international conference on Iraq ended Friday without top-level meetings between the United States and Iran.

Iraqi officials had hoped senior diplomats from Iran and the U.S. would meet on the sidelines of the conference. There was instead an ambassador-level meeting.

aaack! Bush – never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
What countries attended?

Some media outlets are touting that insurgents and Al Qaeda in Anbar are “retreating.” Have you heard anything about this?

LS @ 22

Hi Rand,

Did you ever hear that they were considering installing Tariq Aziz later as a “strong man” if Maliki doesn’t cooperate? Tom Hayden was floating that around a while back.

have not heard that and it would be a horrible admission of failure if it happened, but then iraq is a failure. the name i hear is allawi, the first PM coming back

rand beers @ 18

Ghostman @ 13

Ok, cool. A question for Mr. Beers: what do you make of the reports that we are having success with the Bedouin tribes out in Anbar?

Ghostman

i think that we have be at this for a long time and the results remain slim. the administration points to it because they have so little to point to. if it were really a success then they should have been able to shut down al qaeda by now.

Isn’t it also the case that al Qaeda insurgent tensions have more to do with it than us? It seems to be this is another example of competing narratives. If something happens in Iraq the WH and media ascribe it to American actions whereas it often has more to do with internal Iraqi politics. The Mahdi Army keeping a low profile in Baghdad saving their strength and reducing death squad killings only so long as the focus of the US surge remains on the Sunnis.

and who initiated the congress? Major blessings and more power to them.

Taylor Marsh @ 23

Honestly, how “plugged in” do you have to be to get talks started where none existed before?

EXACTLY. you have to start. and it doesn’t matter where. that’s diplomacy 101, but these guys and girls don’t get it.

The accompanying commentary with the pictures from the link ironically (or not so) says that (paraphrasing) “it’s a shame that there is not a leader who can tame all these factions…”

Yeah. What a shame that for some reason Rummy’s BFF Saddam somehow earned the ire of the Neocons (did he forget to pay a CheneyBurton bill on time?), and became the target of the Oedipal Boy-Emperor of Fantasyland-on-the-Potomac.

This war is no longer about any formerly stated purpose or even “Supporting the Troops” if indeed it ever was; it’s become about protecting Bunnypants The Commander Guy from yet another humiliating failure in a lifetime of humiliating failures.

Or Something.

Hugh @ 28

rand beers @ 18

Ghostman @ 13
Ok, cool. A question for Mr. Beers: what do you make of the reports that we are having success with the Bedouin tribes out in Anbar?

Ghostman
————

i think that we have be at this for a long time and the results remain slim. the administration points to it because they have so little to point to. if it were really a success then they should have been able to shut down al qaeda by now.

Isn’t it also the case that al Qaeda insurgent tensions have more to do with it than us? It seems to be this is another example of competing narratives. If something happens in Iraq the WH and media ascribe it to American actions whereas it often has more to do with internal Iraqi politics. The Mahdi Army keeping a low profile in Baghdad saving their strength and reducing death squad killings only so long as the focus of the US surge remains on the Sunnis.

you’re right. this administration continues to believe that its actions are the driver, when, in fact the forces unleashed by the invasion are swirling far beyond our ability to control them. we are a target not a driver, but bush doesn’t understand.

If you don’t mind talking a little politics, what do you think about the veto and what needs to come next from Congress?

Kathryn in MA @ 29

and who initiated the congress? Major blessings and more power to them.

the iraqi initiated it because the administration did not want to be seen as inviting syria and iran to a meeting.

Rand, have you heard anything about the Democrats caving in on timetables for Iraq bill? I would cut them some slack if they issued a public statement that said they felt they were dealing with an irrational GOP but they had to prevent GWB from holding up funding the troops. sort of a public congressional signing statement if you will. What do you think will happen?

Mr Beers, what’s the thinking/sentiment of the Iraqi’s on being allowed to split the country into the pre-Brit imposed “Iraq”? Is there any way to guarantee a split of oil revenues and leave the rest to be worked out by the respective Shia, Sunni and Kurdish governments? How would Iran and Turkey view the formation of an autonomous Kurdish government? (Not well I would assume?)

Do the Iraqi’s understand that eventually the bush admin will be gone?

Taylor Marsh @ 33

If you don’t mind talking a little politics, what do you think about the veto and what needs to come next from Congress?

the veto is bush trying to hold back a political tsunami that was manifested in the 06 election. congress has to come back on the supplemental with a meaningful response, benchmarks with consequences like less money for the iraqis, and readiness requirements that require the president to waive them publicly in order to send more troops so that more citizens realize the lengths he is prepared to go to to protect his legacy. i also hope that they only give him part of the money so that we have to go thru this again in several months. and i hope we also see th same kind in timelines in other relevant pieces of legislation, like the defense appropriations bill

chuck cullen @ 35

Rand, have you heard anything about the Democrats caving in on timetables for Iraq bill? I would cut them some slack if they issued a public statement that said they felt they were dealing with an irrational GOP but they had to prevent GWB from holding up funding the troops. sort of a public congressional signing statement if you will. What do you think will happen?

i think they will take the timelines out and put them forward again in the defense appropriations bill

The president has four months until the showdown at the OK Corral on progress of the surge. If there’s nothin to show- he’s dead in the water.

What will he do to create some perceived progress? Will it be enough to buy him more time? What’s plan B?

rand beers @ 37

Taylor Marsh @ 33

If you don’t mind talking a little politics, what do you think about the veto and what needs to come next from Congress?

the veto is bush trying to hold back a political tsunami that was manifested in the 06 election. congress has to come back on the supplemental with a meaningful response, benchmarks with consequences like less money for the iraqis, and readiness requirements that require the president to waive them publicly in order to send more troops so that more citizens realize the lengths he is prepared to go to to protect his legacy. i also hope that they only give him part of the money so that we have to go thru this again in several months. and i hope we also see th same kind in timelines in other relevant pieces of legislation, like the defense appropriations bill

There are evidently two sides in the House right now, as far as I know. The Murtha side versus the Hoyer side. Murtha wants to do exactly as you suggest, Rand, while Hoyer seems to be telegraphing Dems should cave and give Bush 100% of the money, which I, too, believe is the wrong way to go.

Jo Fish @ 36

Mr Beers, what’s the thinking/sentiment of the Iraqi’s on being allowed to split the country into the pre-Brit imposed “Iraq”? Is there any way to guarantee a split of oil revenues and leave the rest to be worked out by the respective Shia, Sunni and Kurdish governments? How would Iran and Turkey view the formation of an autonomous Kurdish government? (Not well I would assume?)

Do the Iraqi’s understand that eventually the bush admin will be gone?

not ever the law that is being discussed in parliament will guarantee that the money will get to the people or even to the provinces on a proportional basis unless there is some form of political accomodation among the 3 major groups. no neighbor want an independent kurdish state because they all have kurdish minorities.

A coupla newscasts yesterday pointed out that Congress “never de-funded the Vietnam War, just stopped aid to the Vietnamese government.” Are we being readied for the de-funding of the Iraqi government when benchmarks aren’t met?

And why are Democrats talking about new benchmarks for the Iraqi government when that government has met none of the benchmarks Preznit Pissypants laid down in his January SURGE speech?

And, finally, what’s the Iraqi Parliament’s two-month summer break all about? Is there a religious or sectarian significance I have missed?

Thanks, Ms Marsh — and thank you, Mr. Beers, for joining us today!

Greetings, Mr. Beers,
Do you think there is any hope of resurrecting the idea of a comprehensive settlement with Iran, similar to the deal Iran offered through the Swiss in ‘03? And would’t Allawi’s effectiveness be compromised by the perception of him as a CIA asset?
Thanks,
Ron

Get out of Iraq now. The impression here is this is not a difficult concept or a difficult thing to do.

rwcole @ 39

The president has four months until the showdown at the OK Corral on progress of the surge. If there’s nothin to show- he’s dead in the water.

What will he do to create some perceived progress? Will it be enough to buy him more time? What’s plan B?

as bush has been doing, there will be some pieces of progress/hope that will be pointed to with the plea to be allowed to continue.

Hi Mr. Beers,

Can we call you Rand? Thanks for coming online to enlighten us. Could you refresh our memory on why you left the Bush administration in the first place? I vaguely remember that you were in the State Dept (I think?)

And thanks for advising Senator Kerry during his campaign

I certainly agree that giving only six months or so funding is the strongest move the dems can make right now. They can then debate the whole mess again right after Petreus reports on the surge.

Care to comment on this?

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The “Iran effect” would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.”

Hey TeddySanFran. Always good to be back. Thrilled Rand Beers could join us today.

TeddySanFran @ 42

A coupla newscasts yesterday pointed out that Congress “never de-funded the Vietnam War, just stopped aid to the Vietnamese government.” Are we being readied for the de-funding of the Iraqi government when benchmarks aren’t met?

And why are Democrats talking about new benchmarks for the Iraqi government when that government has met none of the benchmarks Preznit Pissypants laid down in his January SURGE speech?

And, finally, what’s the Iraqi Parliament’s two-month summer break all about? Is there a religious or sectarian significance I have missed?

Thanks, Ms Marsh — and thank you, Mr. Beers, for joining us today!

the benchmarks will be those same benchmarks from january. and meeting them remains unlikely. and the recess is an expression of disdain for the US political timelines, besides it’s hot in the summer in baghdad.

Why do Biden — and now Brownback — tout the tripartite solution unchallenged? A US-imposed three-state solution is acceptable only to Biden and Brownback– not to Iraqis and not to the Iranian, Saudi, Turkish or Syrian governments. Why is treated as a “wise” solution? Doesn’t Biden, as Chair of ForRelations, know it won’t be accepted by Iraq’s neighbors?

john in sacramento @ 46

Hi Mr. Beers,

Can we call you Rand? Thanks for coming online to enlighten us. Could you refresh our memory on why you left the Bush administration in the first place? I vaguely remember that you were in the State Dept (I think?)

And thanks for advising Senator Kerry during his campaign

yes, call me rand or randy. i left because i thought we were taking our eye off the real threat of bin ladin and we were going into iraq without enough force or enough allies or a legitimate UN mandate. and when i left i was at the NSC as the senior director for combatting terrorism

On Iraq: some politicians argue for a phased reduction; leaving small deployments in-country. I worry that such a plan would only open our troops to more and more attacks. Seems like we either need to be all the way in; or all the way out. Your thoughts?

Ghostman

Mr. Beers,

We hear from various people (Joe Biden, Tommy Thompson just last night) that partition is a solution in Iraq. My impression from Juan Cole and others is that even if it were not endorsing ethnic cleansing, this is a false hope because the sects are not nicely geographically distinct (Baghdad especially being heavily mixed.) Do you think any such plan could realistically make things better rather than worse, and is it something that anyone outside could actually impose on a “sovereign” Iraqi government?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 48

Care to comment on this?

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The “Iran effect” would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that “an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III.”

an invasion of iran would be an ever greater disaster than iraq, no question. WW III, probably not, but a major expansion of hostilities against a much more effective enemy than bin ladin or the iraqi insurgents.

Newsweek reports a new low for Bush’s JAR- 28%. May be the result of the veto. Bush is riding a political horse that’s starvin to death–he may be walking soon. Newsweek also reports that no gooper is leading Hillary currently- another result of the veto?

Goopers are in a bind- they are going to inherit this war no matter what they say or do- and their president just keeps making it a bigger burden.

Goopers have got to be thinking that unless THEY force a change- they will be consigned to minority status for a long time.

Won’t political forces compell a change in the administration’s position? It’s one thing for Bush to call the dems cowards- will he dare to do that to a significant minority of the gooper congressional caucus?

Did you all read this post on Juan Cole’s blog today? Very interesting. Here’s a snippet:

9. As the Army and Marine Corps troops are told that they will stay the entire 15 month tour, and the follow on forces get notified of deployments for same, it will become evident that President Bush WILL NOT reduce American numbers in Iraq in 2007. His arrogance and stubborness will cost him support by year’s end among the GOP;

10. It will become increasingly clearer that Maliki, and his Shia dominated government, have no intent on handing back any substantive power to Sunnis or even Kurds;

11. As the Kurds become more disillusioned and embittered at not receiving substantive increases in their real power, they will make moves which will draw severe warnings from Turkey of intervention if Iraqi Kurds stir up Turkish Kurds;

12. If the Sunnis do not cooperate with the Kurds, they will be ejected from the Kurdish north, or at least threatened of that possibility. If so, more violence could erupt in those areas which thus far do not present a severe test for American occupiers;

TeddySanFran @ 51

Why do Biden — and now Brownback — tout the tripartite solution unchallenged? A US-imposed three-state solution is acceptable only to Biden and Brownback– not to Iraqis and not to the Iranian, Saudi, Turkish or Syrian governments. Why is treated as a “wise” solution? Doesn’t Biden, as Chair of ForRelations, know it won’t be accepted by Iraq’s neighbors?

you are right. if 3 independent states, everyone’s mad. but what they (B & B)are saying is the semi- autonomous regions. it could happen, if the oil revenue could be divied up based on population. the kurdish area is already there and the south is moving there, but the sunnis do not want this solution because they fer they will have no revenue.

Any idea of the real reason for Cheney’s return visit to Saudi Arabia next week?

[Have Bush administration contacts (and alleged contacts) with the Iranian SCIRI exposed a Bush pre-invasion bias against Sunnis to Saudi Arabia’s displeasure?]

rand – In the scenario of a future absence of a US military presence in Iraq to act as a common enemy of sorts, to what extent do you think indigenous Iraqi tribes, Sunni in particular, would oust foreign al qaeda and prevent establishment of their long term presence?

It’s infuriating to hear constant talk of what terrible things might happen if our troops leave, with no comparison to what will happen if they stay, which is the only rational way to decide. They will leave at some point, so if they are only slowing down terrible events at great cost, then their presence serves no purpose other than to let Bush avoid admitting failure.

Do you think there is a useful purpose in having American military forces in Iraq at this point, and if so, what level of forces can actually serve that purpose, without provoking counterproductive resentment as an occupying force?

Bush mentioned Iraq and US Oil supply in the same sentence last week- for the first time that I can remember. Are we about to have an open debate about the role of future oil supplies in determining our policy towards Iraq?

Cutting through it-Rand, how much of the impetus to stay in Iraq derives from wishing to keep an army forward-deployed in the Middle East to control the OIL?

It looks like the US will continue for some months, no matter what. August, September? Then the wheels will totally be off.

Hillary and Byrd are proposing the end of the authorization in October, 5 year mark.

I am sure this sort of option will be more appealing (if not now) in July.

Biden needs to get his act together. He needs to subpoena Cheney to report beforehand on the purpose of his trip to KSA and report afterward on the results. Enought of this Regent holding hands with the King. The American people, and their elected representatives in Congress, deserve to know what foreign adventures their Fourth Branch of government, His Cheneyness, is contemplating.

Ghostman @ 53

On Iraq: some politicians argue for a phased reduction; leaving small deployments in-country. I worry that such a plan would only open our troops to more and more attacks. Seems like we either need to be all the way in; or all the way out. Your thoughts?

Ghostman

the dems are offering a compromise based on a view that a deliberate withdrawal with some residual force for training leaves the possibility of not having chaos. how long the residual force stays is never defined. i agree with this approach because we have a responsibility for what iraq is today. i would pull the combat forces out over 1 year and the trainers in a second year. however, if the iraqis do not make progress on the political, then i would pull everyone out more quickly. another reason more being deliberate is so that the neighboring states can be engaged to take more responsibility for reducing the violence and instability. right now they are not. that is what the conference in egypt is supposed to be about.

Great questions, everyone. See Rand reading and typing as fast as he can… ;-)

bg @ 64

It looks like the US will continue for some months, no matter what. August, September? Then the wheels will totally be off.

Hillary and Byrd are proposing the end of the authorization in October, 5 year mark.

I am sure this sort of option will be more appealing (if not now) in July.

Olbermann yesterday recalled Clinton/Byrd’s similarity to John Warner’s proposal to re-authorize, back in January, that went nowhere. I wonder the odds of cross-aisle sponsorship, in September.

re: keep an army forward-deployed in the Middle East to control the OIL?
That is exactly what Wall Street analysts said was the real reason for invading Iraq, *prior* to the invasion, but nobody was really listening. I think it’s true. Will Cheney get away with it Rand? Are there 4 permanent mil bases planned for Iraq?

The only way to get out of Iraq before Jan. 20, 2009 is to impeach Cheney then Bush (maybe you can throw in Abu and Rice).
Until everyone realizes this we are only dancing a deadly dance.

rwcole @ 56

Newsweek reports a new low for Bush’s JAR- 28%. May be the result of the veto. Bush is riding a political horse that’s starvin to death–he may be walking soon. Newsweek also reports that no gooper is leading Hillary currently- another result of the veto?

Goopers are in a bind- they are going to inherit this war no matter what they say or do- and their president just keeps making it a bigger burden.

Goopers have got to be thinking that unless THEY force a change- they will be consigned to minority status for a long time.

Won’t political forces compell a change in the administration’s position? It’s one thing for Bush to call the dems cowards- will he dare to do that to a significant minority of the gooper congressional caucus?

good ? most Rs are in districts in which they can depend on their base for reelection and the base still supports bush. the Rs in swing districts are in trouble but not enough for a veto-proof congress. so if bush remains stubborn, he can hold out. UNLESS THE BASE STARTS TO TURN.

I understand why the neighboring states oppose a partition into 3 independent states. The 3 semi-autonomous regions seems like a good solution. If I recall correctly, Bush opposes any kind of partition. What is the reason for that opposition?

Three dollar gas enough to shift the base?

pow wow @ 59

Any idea of the real reason for Cheney’s return visit to Saudi Arabia next week?

[Have Bush administration contacts (and alleged contacts) with the Iranian SCIRI exposed a Bush pre-invasion bias against Sunnis to Saudi Arabia’s displeasure?]

worry about the saudis going off on their own, which they have done. abdullah saying that the US occupation of iraq is illegal is as damning a statement as the cautious saudis ever make!

The base will never turn against Bush on the war. There are other, concurrent scandals that would turn the base against BushCo, though. Morally repugnant issues, to them.

Rand

Yes there are plenty of gooper seats in the house that will stay in the gooper column until the second coming- but suppose that 10-20 percent of the gooper congresscritters and senators start supporting the dems on key votes- won’t that dramatically change the political calculus in the White House?

TeddySanFran @ 75

The base will never turn against Bush on the war. There are other, concurrent scandals that would turn the base against BushCo, though. Morally repugnant issues, to them.

That’s why Bush continues to parade out Dick Cheney. The base loves him.

Muzzy @ 60

rand – In the scenario of a future absence of a US military presence in Iraq to act as a common enemy of sorts, to what extent do you think indigenous Iraqi tribes, Sunni in particular, would oust foreign al qaeda and prevent establishment of their long term presence?

i think they will throw them out.

Rand,

What’s your opinion of Desert Crossing 1999?

Is this one of the reasons you became frustrated with the Bush administration? In that they dismissed the warnings and advice of the Generals?

In my not so learned opinion, I think the whole “surge” strategy and the funding of it is an exercise in futility because it’s just like that “whack a mole” game, in that we will hit them in one hole and they’ll pop out in another (which is happening right now). And besides for an occupation to eventually work, don’t you have to have the compliance of the people in the occupied country?

Taylor Marsh: “That’s why Bush continues to parade out Dick Cheney. The base loves him.”

I guess the base is the only group that knows his name.

Rand—

Your opinion on Crouch’s resignation from the NSC?

I know Rand has got to be leaving us soon. I want to thank him very much for joining this discussion. So any last thoughts on Iraq, the war, as well as where we stand in the region?

Redshift @ 61

It’s infuriating to hear constant talk of what terrible things might happen if our troops leave, with no comparison to what will happen if they stay, which is the only rational way to decide. They will leave at some point, so if they are only slowing down terrible events at great cost, then their presence serves no purpose other than to let Bush avoid admitting failure.

Do you think there is a useful purpose in having American military forces in Iraq at this point, and if so, what level of forces can actually serve that purpose, without provoking counterproductive resentment as an occupying force?

i think it is a question of the mission not the number. if we drop out of the combat role, we will be less provoking. if we do that, our numbers drop by 3/4s at a minimum, probably more.

RonD @ 63

Cutting through it-Rand, how much of the impetus to stay in Iraq derives from wishing to keep an army forward-deployed in the Middle East to control the OIL?

it’s oil and threatening iran

Forgive if asked previously….is the podcast of your interview with Mr. Beers going to be available, say like – now?

egregious @ 81

Rand—

Your opinion on Crouch’s resignation from the NSC?

1st Q asked was if he was caught in the madam scandal, WH had to issue a denial.

Thank you-I have admired you and your work for a long time.

Wordsmith @ 85

Forgive if asked previously….is the podcast of your interview with Mr. Beers going to be available, say like – now?

For some reason, wordsmith, we had technical difficulties, so Rand and I didn’t connect. Sorry.

The enormity of error involved in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is little in question anywhere in the world.

How is the Apeact/pnac inspired program to install permanent US bases in Iraq to be held for an indeterminate future period going to be negated or abandoned after more than a million Iraqi deaths, untold causualties, an American reign of terror to subdue and subject the Iraqi population to American will, a trillion dollar debt, and all the assorted other distruction of national being( abandonment of Law and Constitution, usurpation of military power, etc. etc.) have been invested?

It seems a bell has to be unrung and both people, institutions, and vested interests be held accountable for their actions, the political process be examined and reformed as not to allow similar occurance (much as the Nazis were in post war Germany), and also, as a price to be paid, the recovery of all economic production and economic resources from those who currently control them as compensation to the American citizen who has greiviously been harmed by the current economic masters who have surrepticiously overthrown the government to enable their schemes.

Another way, other than from corporate enterprise or military must be found to provide the management skills needed to manage government programs. This may be the great challenge.
All the best……

john in sacramento @ 79

Rand,

What’s your opinion of Desert Crossing 1999?

Is this one of the reasons you became frustrated with the Bush administration? In that they dismissed the warnings and advice of the Generals?

In my not so learned opinion, I think the whole “surge” strategy and the funding of it is an exercise in futility because it’s just like that “whack a mole” game, in that we will hit them in one hole and they’ll pop out in another (which is happening right now). And besides for an occupation to eventually work, don’t you have to have the compliance of the people in the occupied country?

They didn’t commit enough force in the beginning and if they really believed the military could make a difference now, they didn’t commit enough this time either. whack a mole is exactly what we have.

Taylor Marsh @ 57

Did you all read this post on Juan Cole’s blog today? Very interesting. Here’s a snippet:

….10. It will become increasingly clearer that Maliki, and his Shia dominated government, have no intent on handing back any substantive power to Sunnis or even Kurds;

11. As the Kurds become more disillusioned and embittered at not receiving substantive increases in their real power, they will make moves which will draw severe warnings from Turkey of intervention if Iraqi Kurds stir up Turkish Kurds….

That’s something I don’t understand is the conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. Any suggestions on where to start as far as reading material?

Thank you so much for your time today. I hope you and your views find a wide American audience, and soon.

Taylor Marsh @ 82

I know Rand has got to be leaving us soon. I want to thank him very much for joining this discussion. So any last thoughts on Iraq, the war, as well as where we stand in the region?

the greatest element of the disaster is our loss of moral authority in the world — to mobilize others to do what really needs to be done — global warming, stopping genocide, preventing proliferation by diplomacy, etc.

thanks for the opportunity to participate. go to go now.

Thank you Rand!

Thank you also, Taylor.

Taylor Marsh @ 77

TeddySanFran @ 75

The base will never turn against Bush on the war. There are other, concurrent scandals that would turn the base against BushCo, though. Morally repugnant issues, to them.

That’s why Bush continues to parade out Dick Cheney. The base loves him.

Why? And how cruel was it to make the Queen hang out with Cheney the Dick?

The only thing I can come up with is their base is as they – with morals or values.

Yes, Thank you Rand.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Great honor to have you here Mr. Beers, ditto Taylor.

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

[Rauni Kilde MD]

Mr./Ms Rauni Kilde –

Don’t do that unless you want to foot the bill for bandwidth.

You can post a link because people tend to read everything posted here. It’s totally unnecessary to post huge swatches of prose, especially bolded crap.

Thanks for being at the lake and informing so well.

And {{{{{{{{{{MODS}}}}}}}}}} You RAWK!

[Mod: We live to serve.]

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

Gannon/Guckert and the DCMadam

Oddmommy #100, I can’t think of anything.If the parade of corruption and amorality they’ve already demonstrated hasn’t done it, I don’t know what will.

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

Prol’ly somethin’ along the lines of Edwin Edwards (corrupt D-LA) who claimed he could be re-elected unless found in bed with dead girl or live boy.

TeddySanFran @ 104

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

Gannon/Guckert and the DCMadam

Jeff Gannon caught in the act of giving Cheney the Dick head.

Wordsmith @ 91

Taylor Marsh @ 57

Did you all read this post on Juan Cole’s blog today? Very interesting. Here’s a snippet:

….10. It will become increasingly clearer that Maliki, and his Shia dominated government, have no intent on handing back any substantive power to Sunnis or even Kurds;

11. As the Kurds become more disillusioned and embittered at not receiving substantive increases in their real power, they will make moves which will draw severe warnings from Turkey of intervention if Iraqi Kurds stir up Turkish Kurds….

That’s something I don’t understand is the conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. Any suggestions on where to start as far as reading material?

Here’s a bit of quick info that could shed some light:

Commonly identified with the ancient Corduene, which was inhabited by the Carduchi (mentioned in Xenophon), the Kurds were conquered by the Arabs in the 7th cent. The region was held by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th cent., by the Mongols from the 13th to 15th cent., and then by the Safavid and Ottoman Empires. Having been decimated by the Turks in the years between 1915 and 1918 and having struggled bitterly to free themselves from Ottoman rule, the Kurds were encouraged by the Turkish defeat in World War I and by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s plea for self-determination for non-Turkish nationalities in the empire. The Kurds brought their claims for independence to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

The Treaty of Svres (1920), which liquidated the Ottoman Empire, provided for the creation of an autonomous Kurdish state. Because of Turkey’s military revival under Kemal Atatrk, however, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which superseded Svres, failed to mention the creation of a Kurdish nation. Revolts by the Kurds of Turkey in 1925 and 1930 were forcibly quelled. Later (1937–38) aerial bombardment, poison gas, and artillery shelling of Kurdish strongholds by the government resulted in the slaughter of many thousands of Turkey’s Kurds. The Kurds in Iran also rebelled during the 1920s, and at the end of World War II a Soviet-backed Kurdish “republic” existed briefly.

(snip)

In Turkey, where the government has long attempted to suppress Kurdish culture, fighting erupted in the mid-1980s, mainly in SE Turkey, between government forces and guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which was established in 1984. The PKK has also engaged in terrorist attacks. In 1992 the Turkish government again mounted a concerted attack on its Kurdish minority, killing more than 20,000 and creating about two million refugees. In 1995, Turkey waged a military campaign against PKK base camps in northern Iraq, and in 1999 it captured the guerrillas’ leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who was subsequently condemned to death. Some 23,000–30,000 people are thought to have died in the 15-year war. The legal People’s Democracy party is now the principal civilian voice of Kurdish nationalism in Turkey. The PKK announced in Feb., 2000, that they would end their attacks, but the arrest the same month of the Kurdish mayors of Diyarbakir and other towns on charges of aiding the rebels threatened to revive the unrest. Reforms passed in 2002 and 2003 to facilitate Turkish entrance in the European Union included ending bans on private education in Kurdish and on giving children Kurdish names; also, emergency rule in SE Turkey was ended. However, in 2004, following Turkish actions against it, the PKK—renamed Kongra-Gel (the Kurdistan People’s Congress—announced that it would end the cease-fire and resumed its attacks. In 2006 there was renewed fighting with Kurdish rebels and outbreaks of civil unrest involving Kurds; an offshoot of the PKK also mounted bomb attacks in a number of Turkish cities. In Sept., 2006, however, the PKK unilaterally declared a cease-fire.

TSF, #103, gotta respectfully disagree. The base didn’t even BLINK at Gannon/Guckert.

Check out this incredible post about Rove and all of his political “visits” to all the departments.

http://thinkprogress.org/

TeddySanFran @ 103

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

Gannon/Guckert and the DCMadam

Ya know, I don’t think so. Not unless it’s revealed that Bush was actually the one GannGuck was visiting in the WH, or is on the madam’s list.
Because the “base” is CONTROLLED by opportunists and hypocrites, not by people who actually believe in these so-called “morals.”

Thanks, Taylor. Okay – fine; I’ll listen to your show. :0)

RonD @ 104

Oddmommy #100, I can’t think of anything.If the parade of corruption and amorality they’ve already demonstrated hasn’t done it, I don’t know what will.

Yeah. That’s kind of what I was getting it…..if any of the “base” actually WERE people with integrity and morals.

oddmommy @ 110

TeddySanFran @ 103

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

Gannon/Guckert and the DCMadam

Ya know, I don’t think so. Not unless it’s revealed that Bush was actually the one GannGuck was visiting in the WH, or is on the madam’s list.
Because the “base” is CONTROLLED by opportunists and hypocrites, not by people who actually believe in these so-called “morals.”

That Jenna or not-Jenna had an abortion. That Bush was actually a Muslim. That pigs fly.

Thanks, everyone. I hope you do tune in, wordsmith. I so appreciate being back on FDL.

I hope you all can join me on Sunday, May 20th, when I host a book Salon about PTSD with author Ilona Meagher.

Bye for now.

Bye Taylor!

LS @ 113 says:

That Jenna or not-Jenna had an abortion.

Or if one of ‘em brought home a black muslim. Or not.

Thank you so much, Rand and Taylor, for being with us today and helping us understand this complex subject.

Yup, thanks for all the good Q&A’s taylor and everyone.

I say we feed ‘em the money in tight, tiny pieces. Start with Veterans support—a clean bill, nothing but vets. He won’t dare to veto that. Then $20 billion for withdrawal expenses or supplies replenishment. Make the appropriations process work for us.

Bye, Taylor – see you again soon. Thanks, Mr. Beers.

Thank you Taylor. This was a very good thread.

Raw Story:

Rich: Is Condi hiding the smoking gun?

Frank Rich’s column should be on Truthout’s site tomorrow or Monday.

OT: Just how much of a failure is George W Bush? Well, it’s already been widely reported that Time Magazine left him off their list of the 100 Most Influential people in the world. I got the issue today, and guess who still made the cut–Osama bin Laden.

LS @ 109

Check out this incredible post about Rove and all of his political “visits” to all the departments.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman mentioned in the aforementioned ThinkProgress post, is a partner in the Akin Gump law firm that represents Monica Goodling.

Frank Probst @ 123

OT: Just how much of a failure is George W Bush? Well, it’s already been widely reported that Time Magazine left him off their list of the 100 Most Influential people in the world. I got the issue today, and guess who still made the cut–Osama bin Laden.

And why not? Bin Laden is the only reason anybody still listens to Bush.

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 124

LS @ 109

Check out this incredible post about Rove and all of his political “visits” to all the departments.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman mentioned in the aforementioned ThinkProgress post, is a partner in the Akin Gump law firm that represents Monica Goodling.

And that suspended a secretary for “moonlighting.” Thx for the link to that story the other day. I wound up bringing it forward for two or three threads after first seeing it. Tried to give you credit but may have misspelled your name at some point.

Akin Gump the WH and Unocal!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01671.html

dakine01 and Stephen Parrish at 126, is there more to that story that I can read? The moonlighting secretary?

oddmommy @ 100

what scandals do you think would succeed in turning “the base” against Bush, short of a revelation that Laura is actually a guy?

The hardcore 25%? Nothing. They are hopeless.

Boston1775 funny you should ask:

TeddySanFran has new post upstairs.

TeddySanFran’s got the goods in his new thread.

Is Goodling’s Attorney’s Assistant The DCMadam’s Assistant?

Perfect.

In reference to the link in Taylor’s post and to bg @ 64’s comment regarding the Byrd/Clinton AUMF-deauthorization proposal, here’s a repeat of a long comment I posted yesterday about that idea, which may be of interest to some here in EPU-land:

With regard to the proposed legislation to end Public Law 107-243, the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq (on 10/11/07, its fifth anniversary)…

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

…which was announced Thursday by Senators Byrd and Clinton, there is a good deal of very helpful analysis available in the April 17, 2002 testimony of Professor Michael Glennon to the Senate Judiciary Committee, here:

Http://judiciary.senate.gov/te…..wit_id=434

Because the stated objectives specified in the 2002 Iraq AUMF have all long-since either been met, or been found to be baseless, an important remaining concern of our legislators (and others) should the 2002 Iraq AUMF be officially repealed, may be whether the Executive Branch will endeavor to legally parse generic “terrorism” or Al Qaeda’s alleged presence in Iraq as justification under the 2001 9/11-caused AUMF (rather than the 2002 Iraq AUMF) to “legally” maintain our Armed Forces in Iraq, in defiance of the will of Congress.

With that in mind, Professor Glennon’s testimony is very helpful in highlighting the very limited, 9/11-specific authorization for force granted by the 2001 ‘terrorism’ AUMF, which almost certainly would not permit any alleged post-invasion “outbreak” of general terrorism in Iraq to be used as justification for keeping our military in Iraq. Some pertinent excerpts of his testimony (which took place, obviously, before we invaded Iraq):

To determine the breadth of authority conferred upon the President by this [2001 AUMF/S.J. Res. 23] statute, therefore, it is necessary to examine the legally operative provisions, which are set forth in section 2(a) thereof. That section provides as follows:

IN GENERAL—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The central conclusion that emerges from these words—which represent the only substantive provision of this statute—is that all authority that the statute confers is tightly linked to the events of September 11. The statute confers no authority unrelated to those events. The statute authorizes the President to act only against entities that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. No authority is provided to act against entities that were not involved in those attacks. The closing reference limits rather than expands the authority granted, by specifying the purpose for which that authority must be exercised—”to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States….” No authority is conferred to act for any other purpose, or to act against “nations, organizations or persons” generally. Action is permitted only against “such” nations, organizations or persons, to wit, those involved in the September 11 attacks.

With regard to any inherent Constitutionally-derived Executive Branch authority to use our military forces without the consent of Congress (as spelled out in a specific statutory authorization), Professor Glennon says:

It is difficult to read the primary sources, however, without drawing the same conclusion drawn by Abraham Lincoln. He said:

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (quoting Justice Robert Jackson) shared Lincoln’s belief that the Framers’ rejected the English model. He said: “The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image.”

Notwithstanding the plain import of these sources of constitutional power, some argue that the only role for Congress occurs after the fact—in cutting off funds if the president commences a war that Congress does not support. Two problems inhere in this theory. First, it reads the declaration-of-war clause out of the Constitution as a separate and independent check on presidential power. The Framers intended to give Congress control over waging war before the decision to go to war is made. Giving Congress a role only after the fact, however, would make its power to declare war nothing but a mere congressional trumpet to herald a decision made elsewhere. Whatever else the Framers may have done to enhance the President’s power, surely they did not play the neat trick of giving Congress a war power that is really no power at all.

Second, the theory flies in the face of the Framers’ manifest intention to make it more difficult to get into war than out of it. This approach would do the opposite. If the only congressional option is to wait for the president to begin a war that Congress does not wish the nation to fight, and then cut off funds, war can be instituted routinely with no congressional approval—and seldom if ever ended quickly. The practical method of cutting off funds is to attach a rider to the Department of Defense authorization or appropriation legislation. This means, necessarily, passing the legislation by a two-thirds vote so as to overcome the inevitable presidential veto. The alternative is for Congress to withhold funding altogether—and be blamed by the president for closing down not merely the Pentagon but perhaps the entire federal government. The short of it is, therefore, that to view the congressional appropriations power as the only constitutional check on presidential war power is, for all practical purposes, to eliminate the declaration-of-war clause as a constitutional restraint on the president.

Glennon concludes:

The question before the Subcommittee today is whether, in the war against terrorism, Congress will allow the Presidency to be re-created in the image of George III.

[snip]

I commend to the Subcommittee, once again, the thoughtful formula devised by the Senate itself three decades ago [when the War Powers Act was being drafted]: the President may act alone in using force “to repel an armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions; to take necessary and appropriate retaliatory actions in the event of such an attack; and to forestall the direct and imminent threat of such an attack.” In all other situations, the President should proceed only if Congress has given its prior approval.

In short, Glennon’s careful analysis clarifies the binding effect that the Byrd/Clinton proposal (if carefully drafted) would have on the Executive Branch, and verifies that it would be a Constitutionally-valid restraint on the President’s use of our Armed Forces in Iraq.

The language that he cites above from three decades ago (from the Senate version of the War Powers Act), is obviously too broad and imprecise for today’s bad faith legal-parsing, power-mad administration, but the principle underlying it remains clear: without an actual attack from Iraq upon America or our [meaning the public’s, not those of global oil corporations’] “possessions,” or of an actual imminent threat of attack from Iraq upon us, the Commander in Chief must bring our Armed Forces home from Iraq, as soon as the 2002 AUMF has been repealed, and without any modification of the 2001 ‘terrorism’ AUMF needed. I very much hope other Senators will soon join Byrd and Clinton in this wise and vital effort to repeal the outmoded and obsolete (and absolutely unjustifiable by fact) 2002 Authorization to invade Iraq.

The only way we are going to get out of Iraq before at least 2010 is to impeach. Kucinich is leading the way on this. Once the lies that were the rational for the invasion are exposed in the forum of an impeachment and chainy is removed from office, the overwhelming sentiment will be to bring the troops home now.
Impeachment is the way out!