Cut and Run

January 20, 2006 8:10 AM

Bush is cutting the reconstruction funds for Iraq. After wasting 20 billion in reconstruction money with little to show for it Bush is going to "cut and run." The worst part is that Bush now wants the coalition of the willing suckers to pick up the bill. Even though Bush promised to make the infrastructure the "best in the region" and has said in recent speeches that "On the economic side, we will continue reconstruction efforts and help Iraq's new government implement difficult reforms that are necessary to build a modern economy and a better life." So we went to war on false intelligence, and now that we have bombed the country into the ground, we are not even going to try and rebuild it? Guess the national debt is just getting a bit too large for Bush and Co to handle. Or maybe, just maybe, we never cared that much, and it was all lies.
posted by stilgar (109 comments total)

Plus, I hear Bush doesn't care about black people.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:14 AM on January 20, 2006

Its getting hard to maintain outrage these guys are pursuing a strategy of just wearing the people that care down by coming out with something new and horrible each day. bah!
posted by stilgar at 8:14 AM on January 20, 2006

1. Remove Saddam.
2. Get reelected.
3. Profit.

Where's the failure here?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:16 AM on January 20, 2006

I have discovered a few light naps per day relieves me of outrage fatigue, and I can return to being outraged with my usual energy. Also, I drink plenty of water.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:20 AM on January 20, 2006

So, let me get this straight. Demand that he pulls out. Protest outside of his house for months demanding to bring the soliders home. Try to make it the lead national issue regarding whether we should have an immediate withdrawal.

When he starts to suggest that he will withdraw and turn over important decisions and functions to the Iraqi government, start to dismissively accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

Confirms the allegation that liberals will oppose whatever position George Bush takes on any topic.

Specifically regarding the WashPo story: seems rather spurious to suggest that there is something nefarious about diverting funds to security. Security is extremely important. As we have seen, rebuilding the infrastructure is futile without security because terrorists will destroy it after it is built. You have to start with security. Once you get that, then you can focus on rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to put Iraq in a position to rebuild itself.
posted by dios at 8:20 AM on January 20, 2006

In other news, funding for our credibility, good will, and honesty have also been cut

hoverboard don't work on water: awesome username
posted by poppo at 8:22 AM on January 20, 2006

dios its not that its the point that he went to the country on false intelligence, blew the whole place into the stone age, wasted 20 billion of the us tax payers money, and now is not even going to finish the job that over 2000 soldiers have died for... i am pointing out that he has fucked up at every step of the way...
posted by stilgar at 8:22 AM on January 20, 2006

he's just not man enough to finish the job. I'm see no other remedy than voting Hillary into office.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:25 AM on January 20, 2006

also i was using the "cut and run" quote to poke fun at the fact that when democrats suggest we pull the troops out we are cutting and running, but when bush cuts funding for rebuilding the stuff we blew up, its "diverting funds to security" or some other smoke screen.
posted by stilgar at 8:25 AM on January 20, 2006

i agree with stilgar. the standing problem is really the lying, inconsistency, and poor decision making.
posted by poppo at 8:26 AM on January 20, 2006

dios, how do you feel about this cut in reconstruction funds?
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2006

A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "No, we will not leave until Iraq has a government and can take care of itself."
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "No, not until we have Iraq where it can take care of itself"
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "We had elections, and the government is in place, but we still need to get some more things accomplished before we can leave."
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "We can start to withdraw, but there is more work to be done."
A: "OMG! Quitter! You are going to cut and run and not finish the job! Don't leave the Iraqis!"
posted by dios at 8:27 AM on January 20, 2006

stilgar - What would be the best move then... where or what should Bush do now?
posted by Witty at 8:28 AM on January 20, 2006

this will end well
posted by jenovus at 8:29 AM on January 20, 2006

It will never end
posted by poppo at 8:30 AM on January 20, 2006

You know at Pottery Barn if you break something you need to buy it. :-)

I remember thinking during the "shock and awe" phase of the war "wait a minute... aren't we going to have to pay to rebuild all this stuff"? Yet another example of incredibly poor planning that never took into account step two.
posted by xammerboy at 8:30 AM on January 20, 2006

dios: By far the majority of people who don't like the Iraq war don't want to cut-and-run, leaving a bombed-out terrorist factory. You'd do well to not assume that everyone against this bullshit is a loony-lefty camping out in front of the White House.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2006

I think that we should try and find that 9 billion dollars that "got lost", start to pull all of our troops out, impeach bush as a war criminal, after we leave watch the horrible chaos of the Iraq civil war erupt, learn our lesson and don't invade any more countries for oil, suffer the consequences of our poor actions...thats what i think we should do, then i think we should imprison most of the bush cabinet, and add a constitutional amendment that we can not have wars of choice, cut the military budget in half, use that money to fund renewable energy projects, and end world poverty.... thats our best move, however i doubt any of that will happen.
posted by stilgar at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2006

poppo, I was referring to the thread. On second thought, maybe you were too.
posted by jenovus at 8:33 AM on January 20, 2006

Bush doesn't care about black people

black Iraqi people
posted by PenguinBukkake at 8:33 AM on January 20, 2006

Flag on dios' play: false dilemma.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:33 AM on January 20, 2006

1. Remove Saddam.
2. Get reelected.
3. Profit.

Where's the failure here?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:16 AM PST on January 20 [!]

Absolutely. Haliburton stock has doubled since 2003.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:34 AM on January 20, 2006

black Iraqi people

Iraqi people
posted by PenguinBukkake at 8:34 AM on January 20, 2006

.
posted by PenguinBukkake at 8:34 AM on January 20, 2006

I'm see no other remedy than voting Hillary into office.

Reminds me of the way my Dad operates the aircon in his car, on both hot summer days and cold winter nights... sometimes you have to stop twiddling the dial and just open the damn windows.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:38 AM on January 20, 2006

dios, who is this "A" in your post supposed to be? as far as i can tell, most of those of us who opposed the invasion and occupation of iraq prior to its occurence have been saying "we shouldn't be in iraq, but since we are, we goddamn better do right by the iraqi people and then leave as quickly as possible" rather than "get out of iraq" with the meaning you're implying: i.e., withdraw all u.s. and so-called coalition forces right now and leave the people of iraq to suffer.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:38 AM on January 20, 2006

Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:39 AM on January 20, 2006

poppo, I was referring to the thread. On second thought, maybe you were too.
posted by jenovus at 8:33 AM PST on January 20 [!]

yes :)
posted by poppo at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2006

I think that we should try and find that 9 billion dollars that "got lost", start to pull all of our troops out, impeach bush as a war criminal, after we leave watch the horrible chaos of the Iraq civil war erupt, learn our lesson and don't invade any more countries for oil, suffer the consequences of our poor actions...thats what i think we should do, then i think we should imprison most of the bush cabinet, and add a constitutional amendment that we can not have wars of choice, cut the military budget in half, use that money to fund renewable energy projects, and end world poverty.... thats our best move, however i doubt any of that will happen.
posted by stilgar at 10:31 AM CST on January 20

That's nice. So to teach Bush and them chickenhawks a lesson, you would like to see the country destroyed and ravaged by civil war. You would like to see the countless deaths and generational conflict as a form comeuppance to the War Party.

Must be easy to suggest that as a reasonable course of action while you sit safe over here and don't have to suffer through what Iraqis would suffer through under you plan.

But who cares about them? This is all about domestic politics right? So yeah, lets ravage this country too by impeaching the President as a war criminal, lets dismantle the military in favor of some green policies, and lets amend our Constitution to emasculate the country.

And you accuse Republicans of not caring about people and having bad policies? Ok.

(I have to get something done, so I apologize for not commenting further).
posted by dios at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2006

where or what should Bush do now?

Go home and leave the rest of us alone.

Future American policy should be.... stop all this occupation shit. If Georgy Porgy wasn't head of the most powerful country of the world the Hague would be having a field day.
posted by twistedonion at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2006

dios, i assume this means you disapprove of the republican strategy of calling virtually any critic of the iraq war a traitor and of wanting to "cut and run?" cuz otherwise, what is good for the goose is good for the lying, treasonous, corrupt gander you would defend.
posted by spitbull at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2006

and george bush doesn't care about any people.
posted by spitbull at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2006

It'll pay for itself!
It'll be over in six months!
We'll be greeted as liberators!
The intelligence is a slam dunk!

Dios? Grease'd!
posted by prostyle at 8:42 AM on January 20, 2006

"Bush doesn't care about black people

black Iraqi people

Iraqi people"

Come on now, he loves rich white Christians.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:42 AM on January 20, 2006

Confirms the allegation that liberals will oppose whatever position George Bush takes on any topic.

No Dios, your post confirms that conservatives are lickspittle Bush knob-gobblers, who support any depth of incompetence and deceit if a neocon's name is attached to it. How do you like that?

The country will pay for it's own reconstruction? Remember?

Welcomed with flowers and candies, as liberators? Remember?

Saddam was a threat to our security? Remember?

We've turned the corner? Last throes? Acts of desperation? Remember?

You're in no position to lecture anyone about the correct course, as you've done zilch to correct the course. The people you mindlessly defend are patholigical liars...not a single thing they said about Iraq has turned out to be true, prescient, accurate, acceptable, insightful...not a damn thing. Their eggheaded whitepapaers don't match reality, and they swear it's reality's fault. If you buy it (and apparently, you do) that's your failure of judgement.

I will not sit by as the people who got it all wrong lecture the people who got it right, as if we want defeat, or don't care about the security of our families. I'll remind you that it's because of listening to these idiots that we find ourselves in this quagmire of epic proportions. How many dead? At what cost? To achieve what?

The stupid, ignoramus, head in the sand, oblivious to the facts on the ground ideology you defend at the cost of your credibility has been the source of the myriad problems we now face in Iraq, and don't you forget it.

"Liberal" my ass. "Liberal" has got nothing to do with it. Try defending their competency, honesty, or execution...you can't. So don't point fingers to change the subject. You broke it, you f*cking bought it. Don't sit here and point fingers at the people who told you so.

And there are plenty of "conservatives" like Wilkerson, Scowcroft, Ritter, even possibly Bush senior, et al in that bunch of critics, and they have been right, while your merry band of violent chickenhawk fools have been dead wrong. A little humility from the discredited liars would be in order, but no.

The only ideology that's at fault here is the neoconservative one. "Liberal", my ass.
posted by edverb at 8:43 AM on January 20, 2006

you would like to see the country destroyed and ravaged by civil war.

Scaremongerer.

So it's ok to destroy other countries and effectively incite civil war just so long as it's not in your own back yard?
posted by twistedonion at 8:44 AM on January 20, 2006

I hate to say it but I think Dios is right. A little consistency within the progressive movement would be nice. The political message that should be sent is that it's about time and to point out how bad the administration has bungled the entire "Iraq issue" from start to finish.

The sad thing is that 51% of U.S. voters and Bush Co. have completely fucked-up Iraq to the point of no return. It is now a haven for terrorists and insurgents and there will need to be money earmarked in the defense budget specifically to go into Iraq every few years to disrupt and kill jihadi's.

Mission accomplished....
posted by photoslob at 8:45 AM on January 20, 2006

I hate the cavalier attitude about this many are showing. If you don't care... don't post. Or if you actually care you have to work on your communication skills.
posted by uni verse at 8:47 AM on January 20, 2006

dios: You have to start with security. Once you get that,

you just made me spray coffee out my nose, you owe me a bottle of kleen-screen.

Cheney and Chimpy, Rummy and Condi, oh yeah the whole gang, should personally rebuild Iraq, brick by bloody brick, with jeering, taunting crowds pelting them with household wastes the whole time.

Honestly, how can anyone still support these monsters?
posted by dinsdale at 8:47 AM on January 20, 2006

Dios don't think for a second that the results of an Iraq civil war wouldn't hurt Americans, it would most likely spread throughout the region and cause a world wide shortage in oil, which would bring American food production to a griding halt, as well as imped transport and all other facets of American life...however i was being slightly facetious with my statements. The parts i was serious about was cutting the military budget and impeaching the president, we need drastic and immediate changes or we are going to have a stable masculine country with a roaring economy as the oceans rise and our people die left and right from pollution and armed conflict. We have radically different ideas of what the country should be doing.
posted by stilgar at 8:49 AM on January 20, 2006

I am just appalled that anyone ever thought the best way to take care of a problem country was to invade it and try to restore it to a democracy. Haven't we learned this lesson about 50 times in the past? Didn't it only work in Panama and Grenada and only because they were small and effectively isolated to begin with?

Unfortunately, the administration has a list of other countries that it wants to do this with after Iraq is "fixed". Wait for the fun to begin in North Korea and Cuba in the next few years.
posted by JJ86 at 8:49 AM on January 20, 2006

twistedonion wrote "So it's ok to destroy other countries and effectively incite civil war just so long as it's not in your own back yard?"

I'm pretty sure he was talking about Iraq. However, our actions have already pretty much ruined their country, so I don't see how dios can get indignant about proposing to leave.
posted by jenovus at 8:51 AM on January 20, 2006

stilgar writes "...We have radically different ideas of what the country should be doing."

Don't worry, stilgar, it's not like they actually care about your thoughts. The question posed to you was entirely rhetorical, and it's leverage is to pigeonhole you based on whatever your response might be. Why should you have to offer a solution to the problems you are critiquing? You didn't create them, and you sure as hell don't support them, yet the apologists look at you to either provide an answer or take your ball and go home. Fuck that, and fuck them.
posted by prostyle at 8:54 AM on January 20, 2006

Okay, never mind. That wasn't a fair statement to make.
posted by jenovus at 8:54 AM on January 20, 2006

I did propose a solution, its just a really bad one, but it fixes the problem, and in the long run will make sure this doesn't happen again. I am thinking in the long term time scale (1000 years not just 1-10). If humans want to survive themselves we need to get our shit together for the long run, and that means tuff hard choices in the near term. We are arguing over the carpet, while the house is burning down...
posted by stilgar at 8:57 AM on January 20, 2006

ah, ok, thought dios felt America would be subject to civil war if stilgars plan came into action. I knew he was crazy but didn't think he was that crazy.... obviously you are not, dios.
posted by twistedonion at 8:58 AM on January 20, 2006

Immediately after the [1st Gulf] war, various ministries were brought together to do the reconstruction work. The focus was on the infrastructure- to bring back the refineries, electricity, water, bridges, and telecommunications.

The task was a daunting one because so many of Iraq’s major infrastructure projects and buildings had been designed and built by foreign contractors from all over the world including French, German, Chinese and Japanese companies. The foreign expertise was unavailable after 1991 due to the war and embargo and Iraqi engineers and technicians found themselves facing the devastation of the Gulf War all alone with limited supplies.

Two years and approximately 8 billion Iraqi dinars later, nearly 90% of the damage had been repaired. It took an estimated 6,000 engineers (all Iraqi), 42,000 technicians, and 12,000 administrators, but bridges were soon up again, telephones were more or less functioning in most areas, refineries were working, water was running and electricity wasn’t back 100%, but it was certainly better than it is today. Within the first two years over 100 small and large bridges had been reconstructed, 16 refineries, over 50 factories and industrial compounds, etc.

It wasn’t perfect- it wasn’t Halliburton… It wasn’t KBR…but it was Iraqi. There was that sense of satisfaction and pride looking upon a building or bridge that was damaged during the war and seeing it up and running and looking better than it did before.

Now, nearly three years after this war, the buildings are still piles of debris. Electricity is terrible. Water is cut off for days at a time. Telephone lines come and go. Oil production isn’t even at pre-war levels… and Iraqis hear about the billions upon billions that come and go. A billion here for security… Five hundred million there for the infrastructure… Millions for voting… Iraq falling into deeper debt… Engineers without jobs simply because they are not a part of this political party or that religious group… And the country still in shambles.

Welchers.
posted by Pseudonumb at 9:01 AM on January 20, 2006

From the first linked article detailing the not-expected use of funds:

"...$7.8 million worth of bulletproof vests for firefighters; and a center in the city of Kirkuk for treating victims of torture."

Now see? Right there we could have saved a bit of money if we'd had a bit more foresight.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:03 AM on January 20, 2006

I crafted this post without looking at that blog if thats what you are pointing out pseudonumb, however i agree with it...
posted by stilgar at 9:04 AM on January 20, 2006

Etheral i find the first part more interesting, you know a place is fucked up when the fire fighters need bullet proof vests to fight fires...
posted by stilgar at 9:11 AM on January 20, 2006

Yeah...I love being lectured by conartists who did more to hurt our nation's security than terrorists could ever do, how our input isn't helpful.

Murtha suggests strategic reployment, they compare him to Michael Moore and suggest he didn't earn his medals. Kerry suggests bringing the international community to the table, they ...uhhh....compare him to Michael Moore and suggest he didn't earn his medals. Can't wait to see Chuck Hagel or John McCain get the treatment when they run in 2008.

Here's reality: we're hemmoraging money, we're losing two-three kids a day, we've squandered our good name, our allies are skeptical because these neocons cried wolf...and they do what now?

Suggest that "liberals" want defeat, civil war, etc? F*ck that. These idiots control every branch of government. They command the military. They haven't gotten a single friggin thing right in Iraq...and they want to point fingers, blame others?

As if the only choices are Bush's idiotic ways, or utter defeat. It's a f*cking insult. What, do you think one party has some sort of monopoly on defending this country? You should be ashamed if you think that.

All they've done is use every disaster borne of their own incompetence and fantasies to seize still more power for themselves. They won't admit mistakes, so they can't correct them. They want all the power and none of the responsibility. And they use their power to launch a war of aggression on false premises, disappear people, to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture, to arrest dissenters, to abuse their power, to intimidate and smear. And steal.

It's positively un-American to support them. This will not be settled until every one of them is out of power, completely discredited, arrested, charged with their crimes, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum as a warning to future authoritarians and war criminals who would abuse the power vested in them by the people.
posted by edverb at 9:13 AM on January 20, 2006

the country destroyed and ravaged by civil war.

it is already, wake up.


while you sit safe over here ,

said the war veteran.


what Iraqis would suffer through under you plan

thay're already suffering under your plan, true.


lets amend our Constitution to emasculate the country.


no risk of "emasculating" (a revealing choice of word, by the way, Mr. Macho) the country. the Constituion maybe will be amended only to say that God hates fags, don't worry, your masculinity is safe.


I have to get something done,

plase don't leave, keep pouring fish in that barrel.
posted by matteo at 9:16 AM on January 20, 2006

When he starts to suggest that he will withdraw and turn over important decisions and functions to the Iraqi government, start to dismissively accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

part of the problem is that he's acting like a prevaricating dry drunk by suggesting he will withdraw ... instead of saying outright that he's going to

he's plainly plotting to declare "victory" and "restoration" of iraq as the country slides into chaos ... it's fundamentally dishonest of him - in fact, he's one of the most fundamentally dishonest presidents we've ever had

do you really think that anyone should have anything good to say about this debacle? ... how can anyone defend such a massive clusterfuck as what this war has become?

it's been grossly mishandled ... the invasion was mishandled, the occupation was mishandled and when the departure comes, which might be a couple of years down the road, that will be grossly mishandled too

the president can't win with liber^H^H^H^people with a grain of common sense because he has screwed this up ... seeing as the majority of the american people now believe he's not doing a good job with this, i don't think you can accuse them all of being liberals

consistency? ... who's not being consistent? ... isn't it the president?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:18 AM on January 20, 2006

*1 Blame "Liberal" for anything convenient

*2 What could go wrong, losing next election ?

*3 Wait till people forget the names of these who damaged the country, claim it was a good faith effort, apologize for errors and then say you deserve pardon because you apologized ! Damages ? Well I apologized ! Dead people ? I apologized ! International hate ? I apologized !

*4 If nobody tells them, people will forget and re-elect the same manure
posted by elpapacito at 9:26 AM on January 20, 2006

start to dismissively accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

dios, it's not so much that liberals are opposing anything Bush is doing, so much as throwing Bush's rhetoric right back at him. I think it's kind of childish, but when any democrat says they wants to scale things back and bring troops home, they are said to "cut and run" and "not finish the job". We've seen this line from the GOP machine ever since Kerry started talking about troop levels in 2004. I've heard it lobbed at democrats even last week. So if Bush does want to finally scale things back over there, his party can't continue to use the dismissive "cut and run" and it's a bit of payback to hear liberals lob it right back at him.
posted by mathowie at 9:30 AM on January 20, 2006

There's a good piece on Iraq reconstruction problems in the new LRB.
posted by Mocata at 9:31 AM on January 20, 2006

I bet another big fuck up is announced tomorrow. But it will be lost in the noise as always, being as it is Friday. Oh, and because they are going to kill the pretty young reporter from the christain science monitor. People are going to go ape shit over that.
posted by Mr_Zero at 9:37 AM on January 20, 2006

I'm with Alcibiades on this one. We must have the support of our allies to prevail, but we cannot afford to turn back and abandon the project. This is not just about Sicily, this is about maintaining our role as a world leader. Should we fail here, Sparta and the rest of the seething usurpers will be at our throats faster than a pack of dogs. It's not just the resources at stake, it's about spreading Democracy.

Oops sorry, wrong thread.
posted by freebird at 9:42 AM on January 20, 2006

what mathowie said.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:42 AM on January 20, 2006

So, let me get this straight. Demand that he pulls out. Protest outside of his house for months demanding to bring the soliders home. Try to make it the lead national issue regarding whether we should have an immediate withdrawal.

When he starts to suggest that he will withdraw and turn over important decisions and functions to the Iraqi government, start to dismissively accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

What kind of idiot tries treats one group who wants out the exact same as a group who points to the failue to deliver?

People who belong to the set who thought the US Government was ill advised to go into Iraq do not HAVE to be of the same set of people think the best way at present, given the situation WRT Iraqi policy is to remove the US from Iraq and these sets of people do not HAVE to be of the set who point to the failure to deliver on what was sold/promised/declared about how Iraq would be rebuilt.

I'd love to see a defense of how a rational person could take three seperate groups and claim they are all one.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:42 AM on January 20, 2006

Commander Codpiece does the cut-n-run.
How will the bobbleheads on Fox News spin this?
Compare him to Michael Moore?

But seriously, did the corporate execs at Halliburton figure they had already maximized profits and now need to socialize the risk? Are the oil companies throwing in the towel? What's up with this?
posted by nofundy at 9:44 AM on January 20, 2006

What's going on with Jill Carroll? It's page 2 at cnn.com and it's hard to tell if it's even on their radar.
posted by nervousfritz at 9:52 AM on January 20, 2006

dios, you are forgetting that we had no goddamned business going there in the first place. Hell, most of us were saying "don't go into Iraq" long before any of us were saying "get out of Iraq." We're not just saying it because we like how it sounds, so don't try to fucking cheapen it by proclaiming it's the hip new "liberal" thing to say. (I'm not a liberal.)
posted by wakko at 10:08 AM on January 20, 2006

posted by orthogonality at 10:14 AM on January 20, 2006

So, let me get this straight. Demand that he pulls out... When he starts to suggest that he will withdraw... accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

Right now, something like 200 million Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing, and has done, in Iraq. And it turns out that you can see what all of them are thinking at once.

That must be handy. Since you've got all this insight "on tap," as it were, can you tell me if anyone's seen my car keys? I had them just a second ago...
posted by Western Infidels at 10:24 AM on January 20, 2006

“You broke it, you f*cking bought it. Don't sit here and point fingers at the people who told you so. And there are plenty of "conservatives" like Wilkerson, Scowcroft, Ritter, even possibly Bush senior, et al in that bunch of critics, and they have been right, while your merry band of violent chickenhawk fools have been dead wrong.” -posted by edverb

‘Nuff said. Well said too.

And, gee, I wish we knew where all our tax money went...
posted by Smedleyman at 10:28 AM on January 20, 2006

orthogonality ... there's something quite disturbing about that graph

how is it that the more money the government spends on these departments, the worse it does?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:28 AM on January 20, 2006

I'd like you to all read an argument with Dios-like characters.

Quit falling for it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 AM on January 20, 2006

"Bush doesn't care about black people

black Iraqi people

Iraqi people"

Come on now, he loves rich white Christians.

No. He uses rich white Christians.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 AM on January 20, 2006

"So to teach Bush and them chickenhawks a lesson, you would like to see the country destroyed and ravaged by civil war."

No, and that's why we pointed out why this was a disaster before the first shot was fired. I was right, and you were wrong, chump. But keep flailing like a child and blaming everyone else for your messes; it's quite entertaining.
posted by 2sheets at 10:56 AM on January 20, 2006

I thought this post was well-thought out and impartial.
posted by menace303 at 11:05 AM on January 20, 2006

fff that was a great argument, it really does happen like that all the time.
posted by stilgar at 11:14 AM on January 20, 2006

Bush going back on his word? comon. He saved the world - remember?
posted by iggychaos at 11:16 AM on January 20, 2006

fff that was a great argument, it really does happen like that all the time.

...on both sides of the fence.
posted by Witty at 11:17 AM on January 20, 2006

I'd like you to all read an argument with Dios-like characters.

Quit falling for it.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:46 PM EST on January 20 [!]

Agreed. Though I wouldn't bother casting it as a left/right - liberal/conservative dynamic. Anyone of any stripe can employ this method, it just so happens that prominent neocons do so with great frequency. But then, that's obvious.

Reminds me of when I defended dios from being called a troll and he turned around and accused me of calling him a troll. Comedy gold if it wasn't so sad.
posted by juiceCake at 11:30 AM on January 20, 2006

Comedy gold if it wasn't so sad.

This is an excellent summary of ParisParamus, and Fightin' Dios.
posted by I Love Tacos at 11:41 AM on January 20, 2006

I used to defend Dios.

I honestly think he could present a useful counterpoint in many of the wanking threads. Unfortunately, it looks like he simply will not do so: he appears to be far more interested in presenting craptacularly misleading statements, then using all his lawyerly skills in weasel-wording to avoid having to actually prove what he says.

As a result, I uniformly ignore his writing. He has nothing of value to add, because he can't be arsed to be valuable.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:55 AM on January 20, 2006

It's simple really.
Bush invaded Iraq ... and from that point onward, there was and is nothing he could do to make it right.

It's omlette.

And, now, all there's left to do is to force it down his smug little throat.
posted by Blue Stone at 11:55 AM on January 20, 2006

Fightin' Dios

Now fightin' is a big big word :) let say deflectin' poop thrown by ...it's fair and balanced a la O'RLY
posted by elpapacito at 11:55 AM on January 20, 2006

From the WaPo article:
Since the reconstruction effort began in 2003, midcourse changes by U.S. officials have shifted at least $2.5 billion from the rebuilding of Iraq's decrepit electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation and oil networks to build new security forces for Iraq and to construct a nationwide system of medium- and maximum-security prisons and detention centers
That ought to make everybody happy!

Seriously, The Repubs need every cent for their next step - Iran!
posted by zaelic at 12:18 PM on January 20, 2006

dios was and is not the point, the point is we fucked up a whole country and now wont pay to fix it.
posted by stilgar at 12:18 PM on January 20, 2006

and if holding that idea makes me a liberal then a liberal is me.
posted by stilgar at 12:19 PM on January 20, 2006

On the whole, there has been criticism that Bush get out of Iraq. Once he does start talking about that he gets criticism for that. The problem is dios is seeing the “left” or “liberals” whatever as a single unified entity.

Now I will agree with dios’ ultimate insinuation to a degree of schizophrenia in the Dem’s position (not that there aren’t disconnects between the Administration and the Republican party and “conservatives”, et.al) - but that fractiousness doesn’t invalidate this particular criticism of the administration’s actions at this point.

So yes, some folks have been calling to leave Iraq. Some folks on the right have mischaracterized those calls as “cut and run” etc. - so the noise factor on this one is up quite a bit.

That’s about as far as ahmana ride that horse tho. I don’t mind playing devils advocate, but this particular chunk of business - I mean who can argue in favor of someone flushing your money down the toilet (or wherever it went) and still call themselves a conservative? So I ain’ta gonna do it.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:34 PM on January 20, 2006

I think dios has a point. I don’t fully agree with it (in fact I take great pains to give it any credit at all), but it’s a point.

I’d add that I’d be in favor of not paying for it if in fact that was the case. I don’t like the idea of throwing good money after bad.
Whether it’s moral to pay to rebuild them or not doesn’t enter into the equations for me.
My beef is that if we’re there to stabilize the region - 90% of that would be reconstruction anyway.
I mean even granting that I agree with Bushco’s method of warfare in this case - and I can see the angle in bombing things flat, rebuilding it, and having the new government owe us big time in repayments for which we get sweet, sweet, oil deals - the nut of that is the “rebuilding” part.

And that’s only going to happen if we get the place secure. But we have to get the oil flowing so they can pay for most of it themselves. But that’s not going to happen unless they’re secure - which means we have to spend more money - which we’re not going to.
(I don’t know. It makes my head hurt)
But again - I don’t buy that whole bill of goods because lots and lots of money is unaccounted for.

I’ll also point out that I’ve read this quote (from the Wash Post piece) before:

“The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding."”

Which sets my paranoia antennae ringing.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:45 PM on January 20, 2006

So, let me get this straight. Demand that he pulls out. Protest outside of his house for months demanding to bring the soliders home. Try to make it the lead national issue regarding whether we should have an immediate withdrawal.

When he starts to suggest that he will withdraw and turn over important decisions and functions to the Iraqi government, start to dismissively accuse him of wanting to "cut and run" and "not finish the job."

Confirms the allegation that liberals will oppose whatever position George Bush takes on any topic.



No, you disingenuous dick. It means that not only did we invade Iraq for no good reason, at an incredible loss of life for all involved, but the only potential indirect benefit to the Iraqis we have so kindly "Freedom Buttfucked," rebuilding some form of reasonable infrastructure, isn't going to happen.

Even more evidence that this is about money and energy resources, and has not a goddamned thing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

shitheel.
posted by stenseng at 12:48 PM on January 20, 2006

I honestly think he could present a useful counterpoint in many of the wanking threads. Unfortunately, it looks like he simply will not do so: he appears to be far more interested in presenting craptacularly misleading statements, then using all his lawyerly skills in weasel-wording to avoid having to actually prove what he says.

Lawyerly?
posted by Rothko at 12:52 PM on January 20, 2006

Absolutely. Haliburton stock has doubled since 2003.

So has Schlumberger.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2006

Dios does not have a point at all. He is arguing against a position that no one has taken. Saying that the war was wrong, and that America had no business being there, is not the same thing as saying that now that the country is destroyed, it's time to split.

As in that hilarious article linked by FFF, he is simply putting words into people's mouths. It's misleading, and not worth serious debate at all. I defy anyone to find a single person here who has ever seriously claimed that the U.S. should just abandon the joint. Conservatives claiming that this is the Liberal position doesn't make it so. It's just more of their lying rhetoric.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 2:07 PM on January 20, 2006

remember: dios is a troll... he is only a troll.

Note that he deliberately and instantly misreads the article. Bush isn't talking about a military withdrawal, not nohow -- he's simply cutting back on reconstruction money.

We're not criticizing Bush for withdrawing troops (as we've been calling for) -- we're criticizing him for *destroying the country and then not fixing it as he promised*.

Click here (if you're a Firefox user with Greasemonkey installed) to killfile dios and ParisParamus. Yes, this is a little nasty but I'm really sick of him.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:10 PM on January 20, 2006

I don't understand how "cutting reconstruction funds" = "withdrawing troops from Iraq."

The US Army will still occupy Iraq. They're just going to stop rebuilding stuff that they destroyed.

WTF?

dios' argument shows one reason why people hate lawyers = "ignore the facts and just win the argument" ... i.e. he takes the *subject of this metafilter post* and makes like that's the real story. lol. fwiw, some of my best friends are lawyers, but i can still recognize that annoying trait. truth doesn't matter; winning does.

The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region," Bush said.

OOPS!
posted by mrgrimm at 2:16 PM on January 20, 2006

Or maybe, just maybe, we never cared that much, and it was all lies.

Ding! THE #1 answer on the board!

From the W.P. article:

The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding."

Case in point: the Gulf Coast.
posted by deusdiabolus at 2:19 PM on January 20, 2006

IMHO, the writing has been on the wall re: Iraq's long-term economic viability ever since short-term reconstruction activities were, for the most part, outsourced from the Iraqis themselves. It's the height of sheer dumbfucking hubris for America to bring in non-Iraqi contractors to do basic things like getting the electricity and water running again. But the American attitude is colonialism at its worst--"you brown bastards should be grateful! Why do you hate our benevolence?" Like petty crime leading to greater malfeasance, not being able to shit and turn on the lights when you want leads to greater anti-American activity, if not downright violence.

As an aside, the nicest thing to say about dios is that at his personal best, he's almost as rhetorically sophisticated as Bill Clinton. I think what's most infuriating is that he's impossible to just ignore because people take his bait, mostlly in genuine attempt to ask him serious questions as to why he has misread and misrepresented the ideas at hand (FWIW, I think the greasemonkey thing is a really terrible idea. But it's perfectly understandable, especially WRT his bizarre sense of "humor").
posted by bardic at 2:58 PM on January 20, 2006

"First you tell me not to buy the pony, now you're telling me to take it back. Make up your mind!" -- Homer Simpson
posted by Ritchie at 3:51 PM on January 20, 2006

I just counted. So far, over 1/3 of the posts in this thread have been about dios.
posted by blag at 4:03 PM on January 20, 2006

I just counted. So far, over 1/3 of the posts in this thread have been about dios.

Yeah, but if you install lupus_yonderboy's gm script, that number plummets to an unremarkable 31%.

(Also, mentioning his name doesn't not make the post about him. Just saying.)
posted by mrgrimm at 4:09 PM on January 20, 2006

Goddamit, mine wasn't! Mine was about the Athenian Expedition to Sicily as a fresh model for discussion of the US project in Iraq, and I'm just drunk enough to be pissed that you all just want to talk about Dios!

Don't you ever get tired of talking about Dios? I mean, granted, "The Last in Line" is a great fucking song, and really expresses the modern condition - perhaps the condition of adolescent youth throughout history, but COME ON!
posted by freebird at 4:13 PM on January 20, 2006

btw, lupus_yonderboy, something in your script screws with live preview (it also disables the "Post Comment" button (before previewing)). curious.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:14 PM on January 20, 2006

I just counted. So far, over 1/3 of the posts in this thread have been about dios.
posted by blag at 7:03 PM EST on January 20 [!]

Does that include your own?
posted by juiceCake at 4:32 PM on January 20, 2006

I bet Bush is NEVER let inside a Pottery Barn.
posted by Balisong at 7:45 PM on January 20, 2006

I have to get something done, so I apologize for not commenting further

Sell! Sell! Sell!
posted by Tuatara at 2:19 AM on January 21, 2006

The liberals have failed horribly in Iraq.
posted by srboisvert at 3:23 AM on January 21, 2006

A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "No, we will not leave until Iraq has a government and can take care of itself."
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "No, not until we have Iraq where it can take care of itself"
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "We had elections, and the government is in place, but we still need to get some more things accomplished before we can leave."
A: "Get out of Iraq"
B: "We can start to withdraw, but there is more work to be done."
A: "OMG! Quitter! You are going to cut and run and not finish the job! Don't leave the Iraqis!"
posted by dios at 8:27 AM PST on January 20 [!]


This is your response when directly challenged? Quoting some entity you don't even label?

The qouted material you offered up looks like you created the quotes from whole cloth. No wonder people who have a grounding in reality have issues with your posts.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:28 AM on January 21, 2006

Lawyerly?

NO WAI!
posted by mr.marx at 7:31 AM on January 21, 2006

I fail to understand why "lawyerly" is being questioned. Does it help if I spell it "lawyer-ly"? It is a made-up word, but I should think you get the gist of it: to behave in the manner of a lawyer. Which is to say, to "win" the argument at all costs, including misrepresenting the opponent's stance, building up and knocking down straw men, conflating entirely unrelated ideas, etcetera.

Anyway, why the two callouts on "lawyerly"? I simply don't understand.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:45 AM on January 21, 2006

(I don't have access to the OED at home, but I'm pretty sure lawyerly is an acceptable word. An awkward one, but still.)
posted by bardic at 11:14 AM on January 21, 2006

fff: actually, I didn't make a callout, I made a joke. maybe I should've included the owl. sorry.
posted by mr.marx at 11:59 PM on January 21, 2006

sorry, i still don't get it...
posted by five fresh fish at 10:23 AM on January 22, 2006

well, I thought "lawyerly?" kinda looked like "YA RLY?".
not very funny, I know, but there you have it.
posted by mr.marx at 11:29 AM on January 22, 2006

So, anyway, Bush has simply decided that we will not pay for further reconstruction in Iraq.

That's a pretty crappy thing to do to a country you invaded and demolished. I mean, seriously dishonorable.
posted by darkstar at 3:16 PM on January 22, 2006