Keith Olberman the NEW Edward R. Murrow

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports,

What reports are you talking about, Swake? Is there some new evidence that he's dead? I checked Google News and couldn't find anything new on his status as an organism.

[swake]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538569,00.html

[papaspot]

Thanks, Swake.

[George]

iplaw, you seem to appreciate detailed, factual sources in defending arguments. I am surprised by your statement:

"I'd love to see something to back this up from somewhere other than Media Matters or Oreilly-sucks."

Media Matters is scrupulously honest and always provides proper context for their posts and reporting. Media Matters is a liberal organization whose goal is to combat conservative bias in the media, but they are absolutely trustworthy. You can disagree with their objectives, but not with their facts.

[aoxamaxoa]

Olberman is off for the weekend. The thread is dead until his honor returns. Lots of babel in the meantime....

"The only hope for the White House that voters won't notice the growing number of reports of connections between administration officials and Jack Abramoff is for the Predatorgate scandal and coverup among House Republicans to eat up a significant amount of newsprint and cable television time. And this appears to be happening -- though that's probably not a good thing for Republicans, either..."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/1/04116/9107


"every minute the FBI delays in seizing Foley's computers... gives him the chance to scrub them of evidence."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2273785


"COVERING OUR donkey"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/eisenberg


A little comic relief....
http://pabloonpolitics.com/foley.htm

I will be sitting in for Keith while he is off....ha ha


I am no Murrow. But Keith is a close second....despite what rightwingnut radio sez.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Monday morning quarterbacking, so you admit it was wrong to invade? This has been my position since before Bush invaded Iraq.

So you want to know what do we do now? We have few options that are poor, and none that are good. We are in a very tight spot. We look weak due to our inability to provide security in Iraq. We look stupid in the Middle East too as the government there is a beholden to our enemy Iran as they are to us. If we leave, Iran runs Iraq and that scares the hell out of the rest of the Middle East.

We have two options in Iraq, neither good ones.

Option one: We choose a side in the civil war. And probably not the side you would expect, we get rid of the "democratically" elected government and back the Sunnis (and thus the Bathists) against the Shi'ite, whom we have as of now placed in power. We add a lot more troops in doing so and put the clamps down on the whole nation. We start fighting against Iran's attempt at hegemony in the Middle East by backing the other side, which is the real threat to us now. Iraq in Sunni hands is a good counter balance to Iran, that's why we backed and armed Saddam for so long, that's reason 1 that Bush senior didn't invade Iraq.

Option two (this is what I would like done): We hold a referendum on our staying. If the Iraqi's vote for us to leave (which they most like will) we send the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and we leave the current government in power and the whole mess becomes Iran's problem, then the huge Sunni insurgency (which we should then back) is fighting Iran and Iran's proxies.

We are then able to solve the issue in Afghanistan properly then and we become the good guys (somewhat) by doing what the people in Iraq asked by leaving. We become stronger (somewhat) by making our enemy (Iran) weak. Iran would then have the problem of fighting the insurgency. They should beware what you wish for. If by chance they vote us to stay we dissolve the government there now, add more troops and we partition the country into three nations along ethnic and religious lines. Like what was done with India and Pakistan.

Bin Laden may well be dead according to current reports, but we crush the resurgent Taliban (that really did back and support the attacks on us) and get what is left of Al Queda. We get the people that attacked us.

We threaten the Saudi with not protecting their stupid asses any longer, we don't have to invade there, we are their protection and Iran scares them badly. We force them to change their support, governmentally and personally of the teaching of radical Islam. We make them grant rights to women and open their repressive society.

We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir.

Swake, interesting points and an interesting flow of events as to how to solve the issue in the ME.  Not being a smartass here, just digesting your solution.  I can't say I agree 100%, but you bring up some interesting ideas.

The only problem as I see it is that the political and military infrastructure appears in such disarray in Iraq, that Iran could just walk over the border and say "Welcome to Iran" at this point.  

Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like:  The Iraqi's vote and tell us to leave.  We leave.  They continue their civil war, then Iran attacks, that galvanizes the various factions in Iraq to come together and fight off the Iranians.  Is that what you are getting at?

I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1.  I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.

[rwarn17588]

Conan wrote:

I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1. I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.

<end clip>

I've been saying that for 3 1/2 years.

I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him.

That's what's so frustrating about this. That's why this is making me so mad. It just astounds me that someone in that much power can be so dumb or allow himself to be so misled.

[aoxamaxoa]

"We'd look a lot smarter than we do now"...

The Iranians need not walk into Iraq. If we leave, the two countries would meld together.

One massive mistake in modern times....letting the Supremes put Dubyah in power. Our country will never regain it's prominence. Henry Kissinger can't live forever.

Can we get back on topic?

What will Countdown offer up tonight?

1) Repugs " were far more eager to retain Foley's House seat than do a thing about his gross dereliction of duty".

2)Abramoff scandal... "It's a pity that all of us, as a nation, largely wander between a state of deception and a state of denial, led by men and women who neither have a clue what they're doing nor are humble enough to own up to the fact that they've undoubtedly wrecked American foreign policy and our image abroad. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/1/0185/88184

3)State of Denial...

4)"The president would like to make a change," Card said, using a time-honored formulation that avoided the words "resign" or "fire."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html

"The president himself made no contact with Powell after Card's call. "

5)'US paying Pak $70-80 million a month'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2038420.cms


6) a little brevity?
http://www.ironictimes.com/

This list is as of now. But breaking stories about the opposition seem to be happening every hour. So this list could get an override due to more exposed hypocrisy by our rulers.

Stay tuned for the countdown....

[aoxamaxoa]

rwarn: "I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him."

has "the dope stops here" replaced "the buck stops here" as the sign on our white house desk?

[swake]

Kind of, the largest group in in Iraq, the Shi'ite, have strong ties to Iran and would welcome Iran in.

Iran doesn't even have to attck, just come in when we leave and support and rule Iraq by proxy. Like Hilter in Austria, bloodless, but unlike Austria, Iraq has other groups that hate the Shi'ite, hate them a lot.

The problem for Iran then would be the problem we are having, the other 40% of Iraq that is Sunni would continue, maybe even intensify the insurrection. They hate the Shi'ite and hate and don't trust Iran. They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.

[aoxamaxoa]

"We threaten Pakistan in the same way, they let us quietly come in as needed to get Al Queda, they also need to get rid of the radical teachers of Islam in Pakistan. Our threat here is we are going to do it anyway, and screw them if they don't like it, and if they don't play our game, we become very good friends with India and stop working to suppress the war for Kashmir that has been building for so long. We threaten to properly brand Pakistan a terrorist state for supporting the Taliban and for supporting terrorist in Indian Kashmir."Swake

What does all this do for the future except breed more hatred?

Swake, you have a real awareness of the world map. Yet, it seems that our men in power still prefer fire over diplomacy. Why is that as of IraqII, we are looked on as equals amongst our allies and enemies?

Sometimes you might ask, "what would Gandhi do?"

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

They would continue the civil and would likely include Iran in that that war.

Okay, then what happens?  How does that affect the stability of the rest of the ME, and ultimately, rein in rogue terrorists?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Conan wrote:

I'll admit, in hindsight, that it would have likely been smarter to keep Saddam on a tight leash until we had totally rooted out AlQuaeda and the Taliban and kept that as job 1. I think if we would have accomplished our objectives in Iraq in 6 months we'd look a lot smarter than we do now.

<end clip>

I've been saying that for 3 1/2 years.

I'm not exactly a super-duper expert on foreign policy. But I seem to be smarter than those dopes Bush has advising him.

That's what's so frustrating about this. That's why this is making me so mad. It just astounds me that someone in that much power can be so dumb or allow himself to be so misled.

I believe that Bush's advisors thought they could have us out and a puppet installed in 12 mos. or less, but grossly under-estimated the resistance and how long it actually takes to set up shop in a country where there's never been a concept of democracy.

It's not the first conflict we've gotten into that has gone on far longer than expected nor the first that appears poorly advised.  Without top security clearance though, it's really difficult for any of us to accurately sit back and second-guess what the intel was at the time.

I'm not making excuses for Bush, I'm just stating that we supposedly have the best intelligence-gathering network on earth between our own NSA and CIA and that of other countries.  They can tell us what the existing dangers are but they cannot pull out a crystal ball and tell us with any accuracy as to how long it will take to accomplish our objectives.  It's a big risk for any president to go into war.  

[rwarn17588]

Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Well, if Bush had such bad advisers, Conan, why doesn't he fire them?

It's that damn river in Egypt....