« Did You Hear About the Sderot Attack? | Main | Going South »

Dems in Senate don't have votes for withdrawal bill

Streiff has an interesting post at Red State about the status of the Democrats' Iraq funding bill negotiations.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dems in Senate don't have votes for withdrawal bill:

Comments (68)

Just maybe the belief that ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Just maybe the belief that the 2006 election was about getting out of Iraq could have been a little overstated. Could it be that the American people want change in Iraq, but not defeat? Could the American people want a policy that insures victory? Maybe a democratic majority is not the same thing as a leftwing moonbat majority.

Zelsdorf-Naaaa wha... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Zelsdorf-

Naaaa what the American people voted for was for Harry Reid to call the military-"LOSERS" for Pelosi to scuttle on over to Syria and wear a head scarf-damm it.

What else oh ya-Alcee Hastings as the Chair of the Intel Committee and Murtha as the Democrat Whip or whatever the hell that was....

Plus you know more lectures from Al Gore and Rosie O'Donnell...

They wanted to encourage those two...

Yaaaa that's the "ticket"...


[sarc tag-left for the unwashed...]

What happened to that 'will... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

What happened to that 'will of the people' BS some of them were spewing??

This was a Senate vote, it ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

This was a Senate vote, it didn't directly involve the American people voting.

While it's nice to see it defeated, I'm getting rather annoyed the the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money constructing and pushing bills for the sole purpose to make a statement.

If they want so much to make a statement for the sake of making a statement, be an artist or a fashion designer.

Some guy heralded: "Whil... (Below threshold)

Some guy heralded: "While it's nice to see it defeated, I'm getting rather annoyed the the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money constructing and pushing bills for the sole purpose to make a statement."

To a minor but nonetheless important extent these votes are -- uhm, I can't remember the term for it -- but it is all about getting a position on record, so that those who are up for re-election can be "reminded" in next fall's election that they voted against stopping the war, voted against benchmarks, etc.

It's a common tactic for the side in power to use. Repubs did it a lot. The union organizing "postcard" measure was a similar effort. It didn't have a snowballs chance in Hawaii of passing, but it put "on the record" those who "supported working people" and those who didn't.

Politics, politics, politics..... I agree that people are growing weary of it, but come next fall's election they won't remember their irritation over this, but those who voted against benchmarks will be matter of public record...

People who pretend it's only Democrats who pull these stunts and not being truthful, or are just misinfromed kool-aid drinkers.

Lee:<blockquot... (Below threshold)

Lee:

People who pretend it's only Democrats who pull these stunts and not being truthful, or are just misinfromed kool-aid drinkers.

Having watched the PBS documentary on Jim Jones and his cult in Guyana, and having listened to the accompanying audio of Jones imploring his followers to drink the Kool-Aid while men, women and children groaned as the poison ravaged their bodies, I find that analogy to be not only in poor taste but insulting. Please find another analogy, one that is less callous and incendiary.


LEE WARD:To a ... (Below threshold)
marc:

LEE WARD:

To a minor but nonetheless important extent these votes are -- uhm, I can't remember the term for it -- but it is all about getting a position on record, so that those who are up for re-election can be "reminded" in next fall's election that they voted against stopping the war, voted against benchmarks, etc.

While that is true, both sides do it, the same statement "for the record" could have been made in a couple of days of haggling in committee, one vote on the bill yea or nay then get on with the business they were elected for.

Instead these blithering buffoons spent over 100 days on something that had not a single chance in hell of passing.

Ya Lee-So far the ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Ya Lee-

So far the Democrats have done exactly what?

I think Heralder is on to something-consider them PERFORMANCE ARTISTS.

Except for they tend to grab their own merde and draw all over the walls with it.

Now if we could only get them their own playpen -like when Ken gave you your own blog -and confine them, stop them from schmucking up the rest of the country....

Hell partition California off and let them finish with that project....

Some terrorist bombs San Fran-well get your own MILITARY....

Love to see y'all volunteer for that.

You know everyone wants to ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

You know everyone wants to sign up, join the military and-

LOSE ONE FOR THE REIDSTER...

An example of what I'm refe... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

An example of what I'm referring by getting a position on record for later use in an election.

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, July 29) -- Moments after the Senate voted 51-48 to keep alive a proposal to end the so-called "marriage penalty" in the income tax system, Republicans withdrew the amendment from the floor.

The legislation's sponsors, Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), acknowledged it would have died when sent to the House because it is unconstitutional for a tax bill to originate in the Senate.

Wednesday's parliamentary vote on the marriage penalty broke down mostly along party lines and Democrats are accusing their Republican colleagues of forcing them to cast a vote that could be used against them in the fall midterm elections.

The Republican move to add the proposal eliminating the marriage penalty most likely would have been blocked before reaching a final vote, because Democrats were prepared to force another parliamentary vote requiring 60 votes to keep it alive.

But Republicans wanted Democrats' position on the record. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said the GOP would argue during the election, "Well, now we know who cares and doesn't care" about eliminating the marriage penalty.

[...]

Supporters of the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), say the current 7,000-page code is too complex and should be replaced with a simpler version.

They conceded that the Senate was unlikely to approve the extreme step of eliminating the code without a replacement, but hoped the Republicans could use the issue in the upcoming elections.

Langtry, it's a common term used in this same context by many. You taking offense at something so common is not my problem.

IOKIYAR... (Below threshold)
mantis:

IOKIYAR

Lee:<blockquot... (Below threshold)

Lee:

Langtry, it's a common term used in this same context by many. You taking offense at something so common is not my problem.

Crass to the end. The 'Lee of Old' (pre-Wizbang Blue) is back.

mantis, is that a word scra... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

mantis, is that a word scramble? I don't recognize the acronym.

No one is talking about the... (Below threshold)
Bill:

No one is talking about the immigration bill at Wizbang.

It stands for "It's ok if y... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It stands for "It's ok if you're a Republican."

IOKIAD would also be appropriate in many instances of blogger outrage (William Jefferson, etc.), but I haven't seen anyone using it yet.

mantis-OK so you a... (Below threshold)
Rory:

mantis-

OK so you are playing the moral equivalence or relevancy card....

Do you really think that applies to pulling the rug out from the military-threatening their budget, plans and contingencies when they are under one hell of a lot of stress....

There is nothing that the Republicans have done " to make a statement" that is equal to the despicablity of that.

Hell you try going in for an operation and your insurance company saying -

"We'll only pay if things go completely according to plan.

If mantis starts to wake up or something else "unexpected" happens-

We're pulling the plug."

Do you really think that... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Do you really think that applies to pulling the rug out from the military-threatening their budget, plans and contingencies when they are under one hell of a lot of stress....

The point was that they knew it wouldn't pass, so it was a foregone conclusion that the rug would not be pulled out.

In either case, yes, there is moral equivalence. Whether it is Republicans or Democrats who put forth something to purposely fail, just so they can get their names on it, even if they don't agree, to secure votes down the line, it is despicable politickin'. I don't like it when either party does it. You, on the other hand, seem to be in the IOKIYAR camp.

Support the troops? This is... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Support the troops? This is what Bush thinks of a Dem pay raise for our troops..from yesterday AP

"Troops don't need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill."
Ya know..seriously..tell ya what..the Dems are asking for a lousy 3.5% ...so you all keep those magnetic ribbons...keep blasting the Dems..and above all..keep supporting our President..
Ya want to talk about pulling the rug out?
Tell that to the wives/husbands and their families..How DARE the Dems try to break the economic back of our nation by proposing such pork?

mantis-I'm really ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

mantis-

I'm really not reading you I guess.

Let's see it was OK to show our enemies how close the deal came to cutting off funds, how disunited the members of the House and Senate are?

It was OK to demonstrate by representative vote how potentially lacking in resolve the American public is, at the same time encouraging our enemies-if they only do a little more damage and hang in just a bit longer - the Deemocrats in the Senate might just get enough votes?

It was OK to discourage the few allies we have left that the Democrats haven't managed to chase off?

That is all OK ,excusable in your book because they knew it wouldn't pass after two failed attempts and billions of dollars worth of bribes, and supposedly because the Republicans have done the same thing.

It's payback time... if it's the military pays, who cares?

What-exactly- has been done by the Republicans that is the moral equivalence to that?

Yes Lee, that proposal to e... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Yes Lee, that proposal to end the "marriage penalty" vs one to defund the Iraq war.... remind me just what the stakes are for one vs the other? I also note that this is the what? second or third attempt by the Democrats to do this?

Of course a big difference ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Of course a big difference between what bills the Republicans and Democrats have done this with in the past and these current bills that the Democrats are using currently for political posturing is that in the past those bills did not encourage and embolden the terrorists and increase the threat and dangers faced by allied military forces currently in harms way.

What the Democrats are playing politics with currently does encourage and embolden the terrorists and increase the threats and dangers faced by the allied military forces in Iraq.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'd call it the elephant in the room the Mantis and Lee are unwilling to notice.

Correction..the quote was f... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Correction..the quote was from yesterday Army Times..

ah Rory "It's payback time.... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ah Rory "It's payback time... if it's the military pays, who cares?"..certainly not Bush who thinks 3.5% pay raise is too much..
After all they all signed up for multiple tours..oh..probably not..

That is all OK ,excusabl... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That is all OK ,excusable in your book because they knew it wouldn't pass after two failed attempts and billions of dollars worth of bribes, and supposedly because the Republicans have done the same thing.

No, you dipshit, I said it's despicable when either party does it. I don't like such practices from politicians in general. You just don't like Democrats.

What the Democrats are playing politics with currently does encourage and embolden the terrorists and increase the threats and dangers faced by the allied military forces in Iraq.

Sorry, we are constantly told from the right that "the enemy" wants to kill us, variously, for "our freedoms," because of gays, to institute a worldwide caliphate, to destroy all non-muslims, because they're just evil, and a host of other reasons, none of which could possibly be affected in any way by what bills the Democrats fail to pass in the Senate.

Even if you don't believe all those ridiculous reasons, I just don't buy the whole "encourage and embolden" claptrap. Sorry, it's just a stupid, lazy argument.

mantis-Simple ques... (Below threshold)
Rory:

mantis-

Simple question-what have the Republicans done that is equal?

nogo postal-

the military would like to win the damn war-that simple. They'd prioritize that.

Have the Demoocrats sent a pay raise bill to the President that is devoid of anything else and that actually PROVIDES MORE FUNDING OR INCREASES TAXES FOR IT- OR CUTS SOME OTHER PROGRAM-?

No it's yet another "ACT" that they knew wouldn't pass.

"I also note that this i... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"I also note that this is the what? second or third attempt by the Democrats to do this?"

Good noting job... I think each version has had differences, so it I don't think the fact that its the third time around (or whatever, I've lost count) is too terribly important.

It's just politics, and the rhetoric that it means Democrats don't support the troops is just politics too. As my mom would say - "clean your finger before pointing at my spots".

mantis-Riiiiiight-... (Below threshold)
Rory:

mantis-

Riiiiiight-

The terrorist don't time their events for political resultst-that is a totally bogus argument.

They didn't time the Madrid bombings for effect.

That was just lucky...

Honestly you are naive.

It's a common tactic for... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

It's a common tactic for the side in power to use. Repubs did it a lot. The union organizing "postcard" measure was a similar effort. It didn't have a snowballs chance in Hawaii of passing, but it put "on the record" those who "supported working people" and those who didn't.

Just fyi, Hawaii is a series of volcanic mountains most of which have snow on them.

We lost the battle, but we ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

We lost the battle, but we are winning the war.

The longer this stretches out the more the American public will blame the Republicans for prolonging this disaster.

Lee, differences in what re... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee, differences in what respect. The outcome of each was crafted to accomplish the same thing. You are not to blind with brilliance, and your bullshit does not baffle anyone buy you. So wee lee, toddle on off to your little place, blue.

I am sure you are all so pr... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I am sure you are all so proud that our forces are protecting the Iraqi's right to practice their religion (honor killing):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811


I am sure the evangelics are wondering why they didn't think of this.

Well said, Zelda.... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Well said, Zelda.

I find that analogy to b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I find that analogy to be not only in poor taste but insulting. Please find another analogy, one that is less callous and incendiary.

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" comes from a bunch of hippies running around in the 60s putting LSD in Kool-Aid and having people drink it in "acid tests". Hence Tom Wolf's novel, "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". Yes, it has also become associated with Jonestown, but that is not its origin. And if you want to object to its use, you have a few places to start long before this thread.

Regardless, objecting to its use is like an equestrian objecting to using "beating a dead horse". Or, more accurately, someone who watched a documentary about an equestrian, and then objecting to it.

Well at least the guy that ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Well at least the guy that did the most the earliest to get us into this mess just lost his job. Justice served!

nogo"Troops do... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo

"Troops don't need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill."

Hmmm... does "White House budget officials" equate to Bush? Apparently it does in your world.

For those not familiar with nogo's BS the Army Times also includes this line.

However, the administration has not yet formally said that it opposed the House committee's pay raise plan.

Idiot


The level of deflection on ... (Below threshold)
Rory:

The level of deflection on this thread by Liberals is simply astounding- arguing kool-aide-because on the bigger subject you should and obviously are downright embarrassed and essentially defenseless.

The argument that Democrats are somehow irresponsible for this action is wishful thinking.

Youv'e had years of lack of responsibility where your party did nothing but carp-and now your party has both the House and the Senate-and it's simply more of the same.

The argument that YOUR party's actions have no effect overseas is SIMPLY LUDICROUS.

You believe in global warming, the interplay of actors in an ecosystem and the butterfly effect.

Yet when it comes to YOUR party's political actions-you think they happen in a hermetically sealed bubble-within a vacuum.

Seriously you would have to discount globalization, the advances in technology, the media and the Information Age to believe that YOUR party's actions HAVE NO EFFECT.

What do you believe? What are you guilty of? At best noble savage syndrome where you believe that the terrorists live in a cave and are simply acting in good fatih but are misunderstood.

You continously underestimate them-it has something to do with your vanity and feelings of superiority over everyone.

That's how you excused the Khobar towers, the Embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and the fist Twin Towers attack.

If you think that the terrorists doesn't understand the Information Age, the advance of the media-then why do you think they send tapes for your viewing pleasure to CNN, to Al -Jazeera?

You think they are remote from the media? That they don't know what your party is doing-and that they are not encouraged by that?

It's obvious that you lack reason.

Now your party has 2/3rd's of the government and we will all pay for the Liberal delusions of grandeur.

marc-Thanks for ta... (Below threshold)
Rory:

marc-

Thanks for taking the time to look that up.

You know they make assertions and then they can't even back them up with one example- or provide a link.

hmmm...I am confused..most ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

hmmm...I am confused..most times folks like Scrap jump all over my moonbat/commie/Dem/Loser/..posts..I am waiting for an attack on my post from Army Times that says Bush etc..believes a 3.5% raise for our brave troops is too much..
C'mon..after all..this is all about dumping on Dems and Others..(over 60% want us out)
Just One of you write that 3.5% is overpayment..

Didn't think so...so talk your mems..use your simplistic..Rush inspired words...when it comes down to the real nitty gritty..you really don't care about those doing what you have never had the courage/need/patriotism to do..
most of you are simply pitiful ...

nogo postal, You're so full... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

nogo postal, You're so full of BS on the military pay raise and what they're based on it's a miracle the floor you're standing on doesn't fall through and kill your stupid a**. Go pull over 22 years in the military and come back and tell me about raises. The amount is not set in stone but the procedure is, unless the dhimmi's choose to change it and use it as another way to destroy the military and the country. The democrats have , in the past 45 years that i've been associated with the military, never gave the military one penny in pay that wasn't forced on them, and during the Dhimmy years it was really lean since they had control of everything. They were bad enough to make retirement look better than another 8 years of active duty.

link?<a href="http:/... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:
Come on nogo that is not fa... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Come on nogo that is not fair. You are discounting the first class medical treatment our soldiers receive at WR and through the VA. That is worth far more than 3.5%

Also, think about all the money or guys are saving due to the increased rate of wives divorcing their soldier spouse? Come on this is total win, win.

Bush thinks this OK (VA Boa... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Bush thinks this OK (VA Board Member Bonus):
In one case, Michael Walcoff, associate deputy undersecretary for field operations who sits on two of the review boards, and his wife, Kimberly, a VA director, received a package of bonuses totaling $42,000.

But give a private that is fighting for our freedoms in Iraq a $6.50/month raise is too much?

Why does Bush hate the troops?

Democrats could be milking ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Democrats could be milking it.

They don't want to end the war now, because then there will be time for the outcome of that action to come back to haunt them.

They plan on drawing it out until just before the next election anyway.

So I doubt anyone but the moonbats are perturbed over this.

Moonbats all over the place... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Moonbats all over the place except on topic. BarneyG, Nogo it is really hard to argue with facts is it not? 29 Votes in a Senate of 100. All the leaders of the Democratic party on board with the 29. Typical democrat, leading from behind. Brian, you are the guy in the bus that who drank all the juice (over 3000 mics). Seems to have had a lasting effect.

Because "this is only a tes... (Below threshold)
LAB:

Because "this is only a test", there may be future proposals on the way. As jpm100 suggests, election timing is everything.

They tell me that old "puck... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

They tell me that old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM) aka "Lee Ward" (of blue fame) is swamped with comments so give him a break. Don't want to overload his "brain".

barneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyGRUBBLE:

But give a private that is fighting for our freedoms in Iraq a $6.50/month raise is too much? Why does Bush hate the troops?

Where the hell did you learn your mathematics from?

A proposed 3.5% raise only equals $6.50 a month raise? In your world I guess it does.

BTW do you even KNOW what the base pay is for an E-1?

For that matter what an E-1 is?

test...... (Below threshold)

test...

mantis doesn't believe the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis doesn't believe the whole 'encourage and enable' schtick. al-Qaeda does, though, and that's more pertinent. It's tactic one in assymetric warfare.
================================

Hey marc, since you know pl... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Hey marc, since you know please tell us what .5% of the monthly pay of a new private is, because that .5% (3% vs 3.5%) is what Bush said was excessive.

mantis doesn't believe t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis doesn't believe the whole 'encourage and enable' schtick. al-Qaeda does, though, and that's more pertinent. It's tactic one in assymetric warfare.

"Tactic one" is getting Democrats to put forth bills they know won't pass? Gee, I thought "tactic one" was blowing things up.

Those of us who have some clue about Iraq know that Al Qaeda most certainly does not want us to leave. They know that as soon as we are gone, the Iraqis will turn on them.

You know who does want us out though? The majority of the Iraqi parliament. Funny, that. When will they stop encouraging and emboldening the enemy?

Yesterday's talking points,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yesterday's talking points, mantis. The Sunni Iraqis have turned on al-Qaeda, witness the tribes in Anbar and Diyala, who heard from their relatives in Baghdad that the Americans protected them. And the Shia have turned from Sadr to Sistani. We'll leave when he tells us to leave, this man who forgave us for Saddam's holocaust of the Gulf Shia.
==========================

You are being sophistic her... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are being sophistic here, mantis. Straw is a sign of a weak argument and you are flinging it around by the pitchforkfull. Discouraging the opposition is key to assymetric warfare.

Now, if you'd really like to talk about thinking of solutions in the Middle East, I'm all for it. I'm all ears.
==================================

Straw 1: Democrats putting... (Below threshold)
kim:

Straw 1: Democrats putting forth hopeless bills is 'assymetric warfare'.

Straw 2: Blowing things up is tactic one.

Straw 3: Iraqis haven't yet turned on al-Qaeda according to the authority of those of us who know. Extra credit for the ad hom.

Straw 4: The strawhouse of the Iraqi Parliament.

Now strawten up, or I'll quit taking you seriously. You have the capability of being a useful nonidiot.
===============================

Frankly, I expect Sistani w... (Below threshold)
kim:

Frankly, I expect Sistani will want us there for awhile, at least until he is strong enough to keep the Persians and the Wahabbi at bay by himself. Allah himself wishes there had been someone to protect the Kampucheans.
=============================

Yesterday's talking poin... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Yesterday's talking points, mantis. The Sunni Iraqis have turned on al-Qaeda, witness the tribes in Anbar and Diyala,

How does the Sunni turning on al Qaeda somehow contradict my assertion that they would turn on al Qaeda? Notice, if you will, that those same Sunni told us to back off. They want to clean up their own neighborhood, and they don't want us around when they do it. Let them.

who heard from their relatives in Baghdad that the Americans protected them.

I've heard this too, but I'm not sure I believe it just yet. Again, the Anbar and Diyala Sunni do not want us to protect them; they want to clean their own house.

And the Shia have turned from Sadr to Sistani.

Wishful thinking. First, the SCIRI is not "the Shia" in Iraq. There are many factions, not least of which is al-Dawa, who unlike SCIRI, do not subscribe to the Iranian Islamist view. You do realize that SCIRI's support of Sistani is also a commitment of loyalty to Khamenei, right? This is not all that popular among regular Iraqi Shia, though the extent of that loyalty in terms of government remains to be seen.

Second, Sadr and Sistani complement each other. They are not in complete opposition, and they both want us out, even if Sistani has not yet openly called for it.

We'll leave when he tells us to leave

Do you really believe that? You are naive. Besides, Sistani has already called for timetables (though Maliki got him to quiet down).

Yes, I believe that. A lot... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, I believe that. A lot of people in Iraq pay attention to Sistani. Also to Chalabi.

Go back and read what you said about the Sunni Arabs turning on al-Qaeda 'after' we leave. The Sunni Arab don't need us to protect them from anyone, except Shia deathsquads in Baghdad. SCIRI has explicitly turned from Khameini to Sistani, at least ostensibly. You contradict yourself about Sistani's desires about us leaving. Are you a bureau?

Clear, honest rhetoric, only, here. Well from you, anyway; I'll do as I please.
====================================

I agree Sadr and Sistani ar... (Below threshold)
kim:

I agree Sadr and Sistani are both powerful leaders in Iraq. They do not act in concert. Sadr is playing into the hands of violence, and Sistani is resisting it, and after the new(post Saddam) regime's baptism in blood, Sistani's influence grew as Sadr's waned. The Sunni Arab coming around is further evidence, even to the Shia, that Sistani's path was the wise one.

Sadr the Lesser's father died while his son was too young. I believe it is possible that he will mature into his father's shoes. Many Iraqi pray for this.
==============================

I see another error. You b... (Below threshold)
kim:

I see another error. You believe Sistani is more under Khameini's direction than I do.

One is Persian; one is Arab.
One's pastorate is in Iran; one's in Iraq.
One believes in mullahcracy; one believes in democracy and a distinction between church and state.

I know you may not agree with that, but you're wrong if you don't.
==============================

Sistani can believe in the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sistani can believe in the separation of church and state because he is strong enough to know that spirit can beat materiel any time. He was using the church powers of spiritual persuasion for the last 8 months while Sadr the Lesser was using the state powers of armed militia, and look who won. Sadr is over the line, communing with those mullahs you think Sistani is cozy with, and the Shia militia which was cozy with the mullahs is now praying with Sistani. Meanwhile, the tribal arabs pitch al-Qaeda out on its ear.

Yesterday, all your troubles seemed so near at hand; now it seems there might be dawning light, you turn your head, fall fast asleep. Sleep, the dreams of Kumbayah.
======================================

Yes, I believe that. A l... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Yes, I believe that. A lot of people in Iraq pay attention to Sistani. Also to Chalabi.

No, I'm asking if you really believe that we will leave when Sistani asks. It has to do with our wishes, not theirs. We're not going anywhere.

Go back and read what you said about the Sunni Arabs turning on al-Qaeda 'after' we leave. The Sunni Arab don't need us to protect them from anyone, except Shia deathsquads in Baghdad.

In either case, what the Democrats do doesn't matter vis a vis al Qaeda. That is my point.

SCIRI has explicitly turned from Khameini to Sistani, at least ostensibly.

If you think Sistani considers the Khamenei doctrine of Guardianship as totally invalid, you are mistaken. He does ostensibly reject it in terms of government (as a "quietist"), but this is belied by his behind the scenes involvement in Iraqi government. An Iraq led spiritually by Sistani is one loyal to Khamenei and the Guardianship, at least on some level. This does not give Iraq to Iran but it still gives them a lot of influence. However, the SCIRI steps are in the right direction (toward Iraqi political independence). I don't think I was all that I clear in that I do think this is the SCIRI throwing their support behind Sistani is a good sign, but factionalization among the alliance could damper that.

You contradict yourself about Sistani's desires about us leaving. Are you a bureau?

Yeah, I didn't mean to do that. Sistani has talked about timetables (and was reigned in), but has not made an open call for them.

Clear, honest rhetoric, only, here. Well from you, anyway; I'll do as I please.

I noticed.

I have said that a small co... (Below threshold)
kim:

I have said that a small coin will circulate in Baghdad someday with a bust of Casey Sheehan on the obverse, in honor of his sacrifice in demonstrating to Sadr's goons that there is something besides Islam worth dying for; Cindy, your son did not shame you at the gate.
===============================

I know you may not agree... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I know you may not agree with that, but you're wrong if you don't.

I do agree; I just think that the puppetmaster pulls the strings, even if he doesn't want to be on stage like Khamenei.

Good, clear, honest answers... (Below threshold)
kim:

Good, clear, honest answers. Thanks. I believe that if Sistani wants us gone, we can't stay. Just because bin Laden couldn't throw us out of Iraq doesn't mean Sistani can't. You are still hung up on us insisting on staying there for some selfish geopolitical reason, and in fact, we'll stay to referee the cults of Abraham. Sistani knows this, and appreciates that we step lively and carry a big whistle.
===============

It should be obvious to me ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It should be obvious to me who you mean by 'puppetmaster', but it isn't. This speaks to why it is interesting to converse with you. I've some guesses, but don't want to speculate.
===============================

Kim, I wish you and mantis ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Kim, I wish you and mantis would show links to where you got the information to make such opinions stated above more than just how you view the situation in Iraq. I read pretty extensively and I do not know how you come to make claims on what Sistani is for or against, what the Sheiks do or do not support in Anbar and what Sadr will grow into being. Sadr committed murder and needs to face justice.

A reasonable request, Z, on... (Below threshold)
kim:

A reasonable request, Z, one which probably neither of us can satisfy, because you have the source right here. This is original opinion of both of us, at least mine is. I trust Bernard Lewis, not Juan Cole. I read Victor Davis Hanson. I google. I form my own opinions from my interpretations of the actions of the players. I read JustOneMinute, Polipundit, and RealClearPolitics and others on need. I don't link when I claim a fact because links deteriorate and most of the time the fact is from my head; if you dispute it you'll have refute it yourself, I'll not support it otherwise, except rarely.

Sadr is a soldier, not a priest.
===============

Sadr is being punished by d... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sadr is being punished by decreasing influence as his bloody course is being rejected by the Shia. The Sunni Arab were suckers for al-Qaeda because it seemed obvious we were there to steal their oil revenue. Now that we haven't stolen it, and we protected Baghdadian Sunni, the tribes are recognizing al-Qaeda for the nihilists they are and coming around. Sistani won the battle against Sadr, and Baghdad will quiesce.

It is not hard to get into Sistani's head. He is a man of peace.
======================================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy