.Iraq successes: Credit where credit is due
We just published an editorial admitting we were wrong to oppose the surge in Iraq, which I felt was a mischaracterization of the legitimate concerns we've been raising from the beginning about the surge and the entire leadup to it.
The reason the surge was needed was because this administration so badly handled the postwar reconstruction, training and military deployment. The surge wouldn't have been needed had President Bush deployed an adequate number of troops to manage postwar Iraq. The surge wouldn't have been needed had the administration properly conducted training operations to get the Iraqi army and police in shape (instead, the administration left the training to private contractors). The surge wouldn't have been needed had the administration paid better attention to the huge gaps in Iraq's border security, which allowed al-Qaeda supporters to infiltrate with weaponry and bomb-making material, costing thousands of Iraqi and U.S. lives.
So now, half-informed columnists like Mark Davis say that Barack Obama needs to admit he was wrong about the surge. His column showed up on the op-ed page the same day as our editorial.
But Obama and anyone else who opposed the surge would be making a huge mistake to say they were "wrong." Why? Because a very crucial ingredient to Iraq's turnaround was the growing and vocal movement in the United States to withdraw altogether from Iraq.
It absolutely caught the attention of Iraq's leadership. It frightened them into getting serious about Iraqi training and preparation. It made Iraqis realize how serious the political situation was in the United States. The threat by Congress to cut off funding for the war was the biggest wakeup call of all for Iraq's leadership. If they had any hope of preventing total civil war, the Iraqis understood that they needed to get their act together.
Neither Obama nor anyone else who opposed the surge was wrong for doing so. Had the surge occurred without a loud and vocal opposition movement in this country, Iraqis would not have felt even slightly pressured to get moving on their own preparations and political reforms. They would have continued their business-as-usual, let-the-Americans-handle-it posture.
It wasn't the surge, all by itself, that turned Iraq around. It was the intense political pressure applied by opponents like Obama that contributed to the success. Nobody needs to offer mea culpas or apologies for how this process unfolded.
Dallas Morning News
But "Fly Paper". You know some people think it was a necessary evil, and they make a good argument. I personally think it was all mismanaged, but if we win, who really cares.
Sometimes I worry about understanding with too much clarity. Some thing are just not meant to be known. Having the ultimate strategy and the people that can operate it sitting on the shelf sounds like a dangerous power to me. I hope I never have it at my finger tips.
The reason the surge was needed was because this administration so badly handled the postwar reconstruction, training and military deployment. The surge wouldn't have been needed had President Bush deployed an adequate number of troops to manage postwar Iraq. The surge wouldn't have been needed had the administration properly conducted training operations to get the Iraqi army and police in shape (instead, the administration left the training to private contractors). The surge wouldn't have been needed had the administration paid better attention to the huge gaps in Iraq's border security, which allowed al-Qaeda supporters to infiltrate with weaponry and bomb-making material, costing thousands of Iraqi and U.S. lives.
So now, half-informed columnists like Mark Davis say that Barack Obama needs to admit he was wrong about the surge. His column showed up on the op-ed page the same day as our editorial.
But Obama and anyone else who opposed the surge would be making a huge mistake to say they were "wrong." Why? Because a very crucial ingredient to Iraq's turnaround was the growing and vocal movement in the United States to withdraw altogether from Iraq.
It absolutely caught the attention of Iraq's leadership. It frightened them into getting serious about Iraqi training and preparation. It made Iraqis realize how serious the political situation was in the United States. The threat by Congress to cut off funding for the war was the biggest wakeup call of all for Iraq's leadership. If they had any hope of preventing total civil war, the Iraqis understood that they needed to get their act together.
Neither Obama nor anyone else who opposed the surge was wrong for doing so. Had the surge occurred without a loud and vocal opposition movement in this country, Iraqis would not have felt even slightly pressured to get moving on their own preparations and political reforms. They would have continued their business-as-usual, let-the-Americans-handle-it posture.
It wasn't the surge, all by itself, that turned Iraq around. It was the intense political pressure applied by opponents like Obama that contributed to the success. Nobody needs to offer mea culpas or apologies for how this process unfolded.
Dallas Morning News
But "Fly Paper". You know some people think it was a necessary evil, and they make a good argument. I personally think it was all mismanaged, but if we win, who really cares.
Sometimes I worry about understanding with too much clarity. Some thing are just not meant to be known. Having the ultimate strategy and the people that can operate it sitting on the shelf sounds like a dangerous power to me. I hope I never have it at my finger tips.
posted by madtom at 9:38 PM
28 Comments:
How about this: We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place!
Ok I'll bite.
What exactly should we have done? Continue the no fly zones, lift the sanctions, how about the Kurds, just fuck them, everyone else has, so I guess we could have done it too.
Maybe we should have done it like UBL wanted, and just pulled all our troops out of the Kingdom and just let saddam have the oil. I am sure he would have been nice, and sold us oil, just like the Saudis do.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was NEVER a threat to the United States. The jackass in the White House lied to the American people to mislead our nation into an unnecessary war.
I did not say he was a threat to the US, I said he was threatening the Saudis, who sell us all their oil in exchange for our protection.
I wont disagree that Bush is a jackass, or that he lied, only that most people that supported the war understood that, but wanted saddam gone just the same. Who would have guessed Bush and Rummy could be as stupid as that.
Stupid or not, there are many people out here who wanted saddam gone, and we have a whole long list of who's next. To which Bush is again seen as a fool who by doing such a terrible job only gave a stay of execution to many on our list who can now breath free, that no one will persecute them. Our only hope now, all out war.
The only bright cloud on the horizon is, that success in Iraq could lead to just that.
What I suspect, but the public will never know is: The commanders in Iraq have been told to reduce the number if missions outside the wire (outside the camps). If you reduce the targets, you reduce the number of attacks...it's simple. When I went to help some units there who were about to rotate out, their commanders would do everything they could to reduce the chances of their troops getting killed-- example...cut down the number of mission outside the camps.
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan was a right wing zealot who was dangerously stupid and criminal and evil and the tool of corporate America, and ..... he had Alzheimer's!
Same shit, similar cause, same useful idiots to varying degrees who will declare they stood on the side of liberty when history proves this President right, too, It's already turning that corner. In fifteen years or so, we'll see the story change.
If you aren't old enough to remember the hate and vitriol directed at Reagan, go to the library and look through the NYT and Time and Newsweek of the day. You'll be amazed how similar the criticism is and if you read the accounts of that presidency upon Reagan's death, be amazed at the rank hypocrisy and two faced bastards who now claim to have 'understood' all along. Shameless stuff.
History does repeat itself and often the presidents who were hated the most during their time are the ones we honor today.
Not the same old poor Reagan story! We have him to thank for millions of people that died from AIDs.
"If the by live by the sword, let them die by the sword"
Words to remember him by.
And then you have the terminally biased and ignorant who never let reason enter into their thinking or acknowledge fact when it interferes with their bias or ignorance.
So, Ronald Reagan failed to start a national effort battling a previously unknown disease that was spread practically exclusively by homosexual men and intravenous drug users, because had he spent billions upon billions of dollars on research and awareness, AIDS would not be able to spread and a cure would have been discovered, right? Well, I think we know that is bullshit, don't we MT? If that were true, we would have no new cases and a cure today, yet, certain groups continue to be responsible for the continuing spread. The ONLY thing that Reagan could have done that would have truly lessened the spread was a quarantine and criminalizing the spread knowingly through careless acts, and there is no way you and those like you would ever admit or accept that. PC is what has killed millions and continues to kill millions, not Ronald Reagan.
Reagan and AIDS: A Reassessment
by Dale Carpenter
First published on June 24, 2004, in the Gay Independent Forum, no less. Just to give you some factual and historical perspective which you kool-aid drinkers as so desperately in need of from time to time.
For gay Americans, any evaluation of Ronald Reagan's legacy begins and ends with his record on AIDS. According to the conventional view, Reagan was responsible for the deaths of thousands of gay men.
On the official day of national mourning for Reagan, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) closed its office to mourn those who have died of AIDS. NGLTF's executive director, Matt Foreman, issued an open letter blasting Reagan for “years of White House silence and inaction.” Eric Rofes, a gay author, complained that Reagan “said nothing and did nothing” about AIDS.
But Foreman and some other critics have gone even further, suggesting that criminal malevolence and anti-gay bigotry drove Reagan administration policies on AIDS. “I wouldn't feel so angry if the Reagan administration's failing was due to ignorance or bureaucratic ineptitude,” Foreman wrote in his open letter. “No, ... we knew then it was deliberate.”
According to Wayne Besen, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, “we were considered expendable and forsaken by the President.” Larry Kramer wrote in The Advocate that Reagan was a “murderer,” worse even than Adolf Hitler.
Though exaggerated and somewhat misplaced, the negligence theory is arguable. The malice theory is a calumny.
First, it's untrue that the Reagan administration “said nothing” in response to the disease. In June 1983, a year before the virus that causes AIDS had even been publicly identified, Reagan's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, announced at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the department “considers AIDS its number-one health priority.” She specifically praised “the excellent work done by gay networks around the nation” that had spread information about the disease.
Despite the oft-repeated claim that Reagan himself didn't mention AIDS publicly until 1987, he actually first discussed it at a press conference in September 1985. Responding to a reporter's question about the need for more funding, Reagan accurately noted that the federal government had already spent more than half a billion dollars on AIDS up to that point. “So, this is a top priority with us,” said Reagan. “Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.”
Still, Reagan could have said more. He could have offered sympathy for the dying. He could have inveighed against discrimination. He could have urged prevention education. A master at using the bully pulpit for causes he believed in, Reagan manifestly failed to use it on the subject of AIDS.
In this, it must be noted, he was hardly alone. Most politicians of the age either failed to grasp the seriousness of AIDS or, grasping it, were reluctant to discuss openly a disease spread primarily through anal sex and dirty needles. For years, New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat presiding over the epicenter of the disease, refused even to meet with AIDS groups. AIDS was not mentioned from the podium of either national party convention in 1984. “Silence” about AIDS was a national failing, not one peculiar to Reagan.
Second, it's untrue that the Reagan administration “did nothing” in response to the disease. Deroy Murdock, a gay-friendly conservative columnist, has reviewed federal spending on AIDS programs during the Reagan years. According to Murdock, annual spending rose from eight million dollars in 1982 to more than $2.3 billion in 1989. In all, the federal government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during Reagan's tenure.
It's true that Congress repeatedly added to low-ball Reagan budget requests for AIDS. But that is a familiar dynamic between any White House and any Congress: the White House proposes minimal funding for a program knowing that Congress will add to any proposal. In the 1990's, for example, the Republican Congress added to Bill Clinton's budget requests for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
Reagan's stinginess on AIDS funding, if that's what it was, was not due to anti-gay malevolence but was an extension of his stinginess on funding other domestic programs.
In this, too, Reagan was not alone. In his book And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts notes that in 1983 New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a hero to liberals, nixed (on fiscal grounds) the Republican-dominated state senate's bid to spend $5.2 million on AIDS research and prevention programs. Cuomo's state health commissioner responded to criticism by saying that hypertension was a more important health issue for the state.
Yes, we could have spent more, but that can always be said of federal spending. And it's unclear that additional funding would have accomplished much. “You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, an author specializing in health and science issues. We simply didn't know enough about the disease early on to spend huge sums wisely.
Gay journalist Bob Roehr, who has closely followed AIDS developments for 20 years, concurs. “I have little reason to believe that a different course of action by Reagan would have significantly altered the scientific state of knowledge” toward a “cure” or vaccine, he says.
Aside from spending, it was Reagan's surgeon general who sent the first-ever bulletin to all American homes warning explicitly about AIDS transmission. Reagan created the first presidential commission dealing with AIDS. And, in 1988, Reagan barred discrimination against federal employees with HIV.
As for Reagan being a murderer, we should remember that he didn't give anybody AIDS. We ourselves bear the lion's share of responsibility for that.
"we would have no new cases and a cure today"
We would be twelve years closer to the day, when ever the day comes that they find a cure. And we could have educated people a little better.
"by homosexual men and intravenous drug users"
So today you would not repeat the same misconceptions as they did back them. AIDs doesn't know, or care about sexuality, and you can still find dirty needles being used today all around the world in various vaccination campaigns all over the third world.
The basic problem, the one most likely to be the cause of AIDs in the first place, the use of reusable needles, is still practiced today. Who know what new bug we are incubating right now. But if they appear, we have a boogie man ready to go. by homosexual men and intravenous drug users, problem solved...
Today Bush has done the same thing with stemm cells. What value those cells will ever produce, will be eight years further down the road than they needed to be.
Even your article sound like gay bashing. As if only gay men get or care about AIDs. I hope for your own sake you have educated your daughter better than that..
Like I said, nothing has killed more people than Political Correctness. According to the CDC: Percent of AIDS deaths in the 80's due to male homosexual sex: at least 75% Today 85% of AIDS deaths are male, nearly 60% due to homosexual activity (some suggest the number is certainly higher since there is still a stigma attached to homosexual activity among the minority groups where the disease is seeing the greatest growth), 30% intravenous drug use and the sharing of needles. The majority of new cases are happening among males in prison, thus the disproportionate growth of new cases among Latinos and Blacks. Those are the facts. If you are heterosexual, don't share needles and only have sexual relations with partners who have never had relations with a homosexual or an intravenous drug user, you have practically ZERO chance of ever contracting AIDS. That is a fact, no matter how you may wish to construe that as Gay Bashing. Those who refuse to lay the responsibility where it lies are the most responsible for its spread. Instead of reckless irresponsible individuals, those at risk and spreading the disease have been made martyrs of the Right Wing Conspiracy and celebrated for their suffering. That's really served them well and billions upon billions have been spent caring for people who could have prevented their disease by just acting responsibly, but we must not expect responsibility or blame them because they are.......gay, for the most part and that would be gay bashing. By the way, you keep saying nasty things about Obama and some will think you a racist, you know?
Please those old numbers a skewed by their assumptions, the very assumption that we are now arguing about. If you think being a white heterosexual gives you zero chance of contracting AIDs, I feel sorry for you.
I think Obama is a communist
"The majority of new cases are happening among males in prison, thus the disproportionate growth of new cases among Latinos and Blacks. Those are the facts."
I find those facts suspect, as the largest prison population by far, is white.
The prison population is DISPROPORTIONALLY Black and Hispanic, thus the disparity in cases of AIDS in the respective populations. What, so you think the CDC is part of a gay bashing conspiracy too?
By the way, the US population is 68% white. The prison population is 35% white, 44% Black and 18% Hispanic.
And being a no intravenous drug using heterosexual man in a monogamous relationship with a woman who has never been with another partner and is not an intravenous drug user means I have a ZERO chance of contracting AIDs.
And I also think Obama is a Communist, so we can agree on some things. Does that mean we are both racists?
I'd like to see your source, Anyway using your numbers there is only a 9% range between whites and blacks, but I'm assume your numbers are per capita or something.
Why would there be a big difference in AIDS. Are you saying all the niggers are fags?
"At yearend 2004 black inmates represented an
estimated 41% of all inmates with a sentence
of more than 1 year, while white inmates
accounted for 34% and Hispanic inmates, 19%.
Although the total number of sentenced inmates rose
sharply (up 32% between 1995 and 2004), the racial
and Hispanic composition of the inmate population
changed only slightly. At yearend 2004 black males
(551,300) outnumbered white males (449,300) and
Hispanic males (260,600) among inmates with a
sentence of more than 1 year. More than 40% of all
sentenced male inmates were black."
USDOJ
Ok I'll take your numbers over all, it still don't explain any bias for black people unless they're all fags like I said before.
Unless of course homosexuality has nothing to do with it in the first place. More likely to be less education, economic opportunities and the resulting poor health care, than anything to do with their sexuality.
MT, there's this thing called 'GOOGLE' where you can find facts like this very easily.
Source:US Census 2000 and Percentages calculated from data in Table 13, Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002," April 6, 2003. White and Black excludes Hispanics.
Sorry, I don't use either of the terms you used and I'm disappointed that you chose them, maybe in an effort to be funny?, but the reasons why the numbers of new cases of HIV are disproportionately Black and Hispanic aren't know to me, but I'll do the work and see if I can find out for you. Least I can do since you have provided me with lots of reading material over the last few years.
here ya go
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006supp_vol12no1/table1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006supp_vol12no1/table1.htm
Hey this is not the msm. All words are aloud.
Yeah, they are. You have the right to use them, but I guess I miss the point you are trying to make by using them. I thought maybe you were trying to imply that I thought that way, which I would find offensive, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Dude relax I was not blaming you personally, what I want to understand is how would two gay men that fit your same description:
"And being a no intravenous drug using heterosexual man in a monogamous relationship with a woman who has never been with another partner and is not an intravenous drug user means I have a ZERO chance of contracting AIDs."
Have any different chance of getting AIDs than you.
And just out of curiosity, do you have any ink, have you ever been to a dentist, had any major surgery, emergency responder of any kind, Military....we need to know a lot more about you and you wife to establish your personal risk factor. Your true risk could be substantially higher then you think.
"I miss the point you are trying to make by using them"
I was trying to understand the logic behind your comments. So I used the worst case, to try to help you see what it sounds like your saying.
Obviously, two gay men in a monogamous relationship who were not IV drug users and had never had relations with any other persons would have no more risk factors than do I. But the fact is, that description would fit a tiny minority of the overall gay man population. Don't make me back that up, 'cuz I know that you already know that is true. Read the damn CDC report. I has no agenda, just the facts. Gay men are a tiny minority of the overall population, but they comprise 70% of new HIV cases. More, actually, since IV Drug users are also much more likely to engage in male homosexual activity. Yes, I can get facts to back that up if you insist.
All you need to know about me is that I have zero chance of contracting AIDS. There are fewer than 25 cases per year for 'other methods of transmission' and that includes perinatal transmission. I'll win the Lottery jackpot before I get HIV, and I don't even buy tickets!
You know it's funny, I am looking at the CDC table you posted:
White male
High-risk heterosexual contacta...588
White female
High-risk heterosexual contacta...1,276
How exactly dose that work?
Do you need some remedial work in the birds and bees, or what are you asking?
high risk heterosexual contact is different gender sexual contact with a bisexual male, or IV drug user. The numbers effect females disproportionately because they are far more likely to come into contact with an HIV positive male because there are more of them, and because of the mechanics involved.
What I do find interesting is the fact that there is a huge disparity in the numbers of cases of high risk heterosexual transmission among Blacks than Whites. 3000 total cases for Whites, and 8500 for Blacks. I don't know the reason for that, but I will.
This discussion gives a whole new meaning to 'this fucking war'.
Or maybe I won't. Seems to be no definitive known reason, but Blacks are more likely to have multiple concurrent partners, less likely to be monogamous. More likely to have an STD, probably for the same reason. The three studies I looked at speculated that the reason for the lack of monogamy in the Black population is likely the fault of the White Dominated Society, but they weren't real clear on how that works. But that seems to be the answer for most questions assigning guilt for anything.
No that I think is the right answer. It answers the question too, why Hispanic have a lower risk, yet are a bigger portion of the population. Hispanics are very family oriented.
TFW, I had to laugh at that one.
Odiously the reasons for the blacks and the gays seem congruent. And are most like related or the same. Poor education, ostracized, and the lack of social institutions, or family life. No doubt play a role in the very large numbers. Not to mention that young men are more likely to take bigger risk, I guess the risk is doubled with young gay men, Through caution to the wind. I would just like to see how you fix that.
About the mechanics, yea I know, bodily fluids!
But you see we are back at the point I was making, it's not about homosexuals, even if they are the biggest group. It's about bodly fluids. That you can fix!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home