I’m surprised more people haven’t discussed this in terms of the change Syria made in Visa requirements for Iraqi refugees. I don’t have an easy URL at hand, but my impression was that Syria imposed a new cannot-stay-indefinitely rule partly in retaliation for the bombing of their building, aka Israeli airstrike on suspected Syrian nuclear facility. At the time Syria imposed the new rules, I thought this was really going to hurt US spinmeisters because Iraq cannot reabsorb its mass of refugees. I should have guessed this “Now I can go to Disneyland” spin would be the first attempt. But this will get a lot worse week-by-week because of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who escaped to Syria but will not be allowed to remain there (I think, for more than 90 days).

PHIL :)

Timing is wrong ASFAIK

Israel bombed that Syrian facility (whatever it was…I don’t think it was a nuke facility…maybe SCUD missiles) in September. The Syrians started denying Iraqi refugees much earlier this year. I simply think that they couldn’t handle any more and they had to do something to slow the tsunami.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00788.html

Since there were no WMDs, the things they saw were clearly lies.

I do not believe I have ever heard a truly complete explanation as to what these lies actually were, who put them there, and who originated them, though of course my guess would tend towards the OVP.

i think this may work for edwards – but not for clinton, i think she really did think the invasion was a good idea. not because of wmd, but because she bought into the goal regime change. i’m not sure how much thought edwards gave to his vote at the time – wasn’t paying attention to him. was paying attention to kerry, though, i think this explanation works perfectly for him.

Well one could support getting rid of Saddam without supporting an invasion. But doing that successfully would have required supporting not just exiled factions that dressed in pinstripe suits, but groups both inside the country and in Iran. And we would have had to have acted to try to get these groups together for them to succeed…maybe even agree in ADVANCE to what they wanted the nation to look like. But none of these groups were any more willing to talk with one another than the parliament of Iraq is today.

But IF they had hashed out their differences, and realized that was necessary to a successful revolution, there would have been a consensus government in place almost from the get go, with a framework for a Constitution.

I don’t recall any such meeting like that- where different factions and ethnicities got together in Kurdistan, for example. Instead the right-wing built up Ahmed Chalabi as the next Nelson Mandela.

But as in all revolutions sometimes political unity is only found through blood shed in common cause. Doing that in a united fashion builds trust. That’s very difference that having someone come in a tell you…”WE made you free, what are you complaining about when we give you these really good leaders and tell you how to be free.”.

eCAHNomics @ 103

Another thing about this. Social security taxes fall heavily on the poor, so wingnuts don’t care that much about them.

Not true. SS tax (premiums) fall heavily on the Middle Class, and the wingnuts care about them. And while the IRS collects the SS tax, there is a critical 1 degree of separation, so that for most people, they don’t see SS as a tax.

Also there is an employer matching system…so that the worker actually gets more back than they would ever put in. The wingnuts hate Social Security mainly because they have to pay the matching tax for their workers. THAT’s why they hate it!

In all those Bush “privatization plans” they never included the Employer “match” thus offering a massive secret tax cut to businesses.
If businesses had to pay something to support the health care plans of their workers it would also take the pain off the payment. Maybe they could also get a tax break for offering better plans than the basic.

Cinnamonape @86 Have we accomplised anything important with the SURGE by way of benchmarks Bush agreed too?
Have we accomplised anything Bush could really brag about?
I wanted Raven and Scarecrow to compare this to Vietnam which they could do with credibilty I lack.
Your points are the ones I wanted to cherrypick after we establish a Vietnam link of failure to this war.
After all Ron Paul is not getting more political contributions from the army than the other GOPers because they think his antwar stance is wrong.
Vietnam means failure and mistakes by our government.

Bush (or should I say the Iraqis) has FULLY (as defined by the Pentagon and State Department) accomplished two or three of the benchmarks that were supposed to be reached in August. That was part of the report to Congress mandated before the August vote on the supplemental. The remainder were not attained, or Bush simply said the benchmark wasn’t important. The ones not attained were covered in my list. Of the 21 benchmarks that were supposed to be reached 17 were not attained, and some of these NO PROGRESS had occurred, even with the greatest effort of the Bush Administration to
make the turd look like diamond.

Vietnam is some ways similar, some ways different. The similarities are a war against a foe that really didn’t pose a real threat to American interests, based on a false “incident” or “threat”. A corrupt government established by the US who tried to throw money at the problem, much of which ended up in the pockets of corrupt US contractors. There are other similarities as well…the high civilian casualties, the belief that air power could “win” the war, for example.

But there are immense differences, IMO. Vietnam didn’t have the diversity of ethnic factions, the strong religious differences that tended toward a sectarian war. It wasn’t predominantly an urban conflict, with the use of car and suicide bombs being used to both attack the occupiers, but also civilians. It was in the padis and jungles and deltas. Disease and boredom were as much elements in that war causing casualties.

As well, I think the lack of understanding the cultural element actually is much greater in Iraq. You would never here Americans angry about Buddhists during Vietnam…compare that to the anti-Islamic fervor today. GI’s in Vietnam actually interacted with the Vietnamese as friends, lovers, and colleagues. I doubt that occurs in Iraq to the same degree. There was a the end of the War a sincere concern for the Vietnamese who had become refugees. No one talked of any of them being potential terrorists. I suspect that there will not be that same concern about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Especially from those folks who assert we are making Iraq a Democracy, and that the Iraqis actually want us there.

Vietnam eventually was hard to escape from in the psyche of most Americans. Young men were being drafted from every Senior class from every High School…and coming back in boxes on a weekly basis. There were only 4 TV channels (3 major) and so news was impossible to escape from. Today one can watch the Cartoon Channel or ESPN all day long, or get ones news from the “Pro-War” Fox. The shift in American opinion on Vietnam came only through massive protests, mainly led by the generation being taken off to the war.

Today there has been a vast shift in the support for the Iraq war without that. It will be interesting for historians to assess how that shift occurred in the absence of MSM criticism and analysis. Can it simply be attributed to fatigue for the lack of success so apparent from the early assertions of success? I tend to think that it was the result of an alternative form of rapid communication that stepped outside the MSM that eventually reached enough people that they could convey that information to others in their social group.

PHIL :)

eCAHNomics @ 79

Now Edwards has gone & done something really STUPID. He’s gonna have the I.R.S. enforce his health care mandate. Oh god, why did he open his mouth on that?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..012605.php

Krugman has a very good column on this matter in the NYT this AM.

The Edwards plan makes a lot of sense actually.

No it doesn’t…not politically and not administratively. The better system is to pay for basic coverage and check-ups through general revenue, including covering those who don’t need to submit the 1040: and then offer tax incentives for those with individual health care plans (with the health care plan submitting information to the IRS). Poor get covered (and out of the emergency rooms for deferred illnesses that go untreated), middle and upper class select the programs they want to supplement their basic coverage and get refunds (scaled to income level) for aspects of their plans. If they don’t get a plan they get the basic…but will pay proportionately more in taxes. Thus they are “encouraged” to get an “appropriate plan”. Certain “luxuries” would not be subject to tax breaks…but could still pay off for the individual if they had the need for it.

No one would be “dunned”. The only way to escape would be to be a tax avoider. That would make them subject to criminal penalties for THAT. But cheaters would only get basic coverage plans…everyone would receive a basic medical card.

Poor and lower middle class could also get a specialized plan and a rebate. They’d still have to pay something for the better plans if they paid no taxes.

The evaluation of plans and income levels could be set by an outside commission. The role of the IRS would be merely to see the income, the plan, and issue the rebates.

In case some of you missed it,
Old Coastie Is A Hero – A Famous One!
3 cheers for the morning coffee coastie!

fantastic story! way to go!