the next six months in Iraq are critical....
August 8, 2007 1:41 PM   Subscribe

Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack last week called for another "six months or so" in Iraq. The month before, "This is a decisive phase," a member of Petraeus' staff told [Joe Klein] and began to laugh. "...It's always a decisive phase. But this time, I guess you'd have to say, it actually is." "Pinky swear?" Klein held out a soft, pink, gullible digit expectantly. "Pinky swear!" the aide responded, shrugging. You people will believe anything.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders (41 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
The NYT's Friedman is a regular feature on the last link's (excellent) timeline. "Six Months" is the new Total Recall "Two Weeks".
posted by anthill at 2:11 PM on August 8, 2007

Have any interviewers ever called one of these pundits on this practice? Can't anyone on one of those "Meet the Press" type round tables shows say, "It's been six months since you said that in six months we'll know. Well, do we know?"
posted by octothorpe at 2:17 PM on August 8, 2007

Well, some time between Petraeus' September deadline and the end of the year, we should know more clearly the situation on the ground and be able to make some hard and clear decisions on what actions we'll take going forward.

... hahaha
posted by blacklite at 2:22 PM on August 8, 2007

All this proves is that the average American can only remember back a shade under six months.
posted by Nahum Tate at 2:27 PM on August 8, 2007

That time line is so damning. But it is an extremist left wing blog, so of course it has no credibility whatsoever. I only believe Tony Snow and Albert Gonzales and Dick Cheney and whats his face the president. Anyone wanna sell me some real estate in Florida cos I'm buyin'. Woo HOO!! USA! USA! USA! USA!!
posted by Skygazer at 2:42 PM on August 8, 2007

"Pinky swear?"

I love it.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:42 PM on August 8, 2007

Am I the only one who always hears "Petraeus" as "Betray Us"?
posted by Target Practice at 2:58 PM on August 8, 2007

I need Friedman's job. Where else can you get paid to make the same wrong prediction for four years and never have to admit you were wrong? Besides the presidency, of course.
posted by chundo at 3:04 PM on August 8, 2007

it sure is taking a long time to secure those oilfields.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 3:17 PM on August 8, 2007

Target Practice: No. I do too.
posted by dismas at 3:22 PM on August 8, 2007

I think we're turning the corner in Iraq!
posted by mr_roboto at 3:30 PM on August 8, 2007

Atrios refers to six month periods as "Friedmans" and has been doing so for several Friedmans.
posted by grouse at 3:43 PM on August 8, 2007

I'll be redundant and link it again -- Petraeus has been in Iraq for fours years. He wrote this op-ed three years ago as the "Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq."

The surge was not a a surge, and there was nothing new about it.
posted by bardic at 3:45 PM on August 8, 2007

"Friedman Units."
posted by bardic at 3:45 PM on August 8, 2007

"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt."

Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
posted by halekon at 4:15 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think we're turning the corner in Iraq!

In fact I think maybe we're turning the corner in Iraq for the fourth time now, cause where we are now seems awfully close to where we started. The good news is, I'm pretty sure we've lapped Afghanistan.
posted by herichon at 4:18 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Timeline's creators called it "the broken record" -- more like "running out the clock." Until January 2009.
posted by hazelshade at 5:14 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Klein is an imbecile--they all are. It's like if the GOP or Wash.Post or Broder says something, they all immediately buy it and propagate it and enshrine it as "conventional wisdom" no matter how dumb or insane or just obviously spin, and they still don't even bother being skeptical.

These are the people who are paid big bucks to provide their opinions, and they're almost always wrong about everything.
posted by amberglow at 6:42 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

posted by rockhopper at 7:13 PM on August 8, 2007

And this is the newcomer they welcome to their exclusive club: ... Meet the Press ... the round table included a "journalist" from the Christian Broadcasting Network. You know, the one run by screaming nutball, Pat Robertson? ...

That's insane, rockhopper--the fact that the WSJ would publish it is even more insane. The discourse in this country is now pretty much dominated by Birchers/Klansmen/puppets/fools.
posted by amberglow at 7:17 PM on August 8, 2007

What's insane? That Pacepa was given assylum by Carter? You think he's some make believe character?
posted by rockhopper at 7:22 PM on August 8, 2007

What's insane is this unquestioning obedience and silence we're supposed to have toward the President and all his actions, as if he's Stalin or something. Our entire system is set up not to do that ever.
posted by amberglow at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2007

Time's DC chief: ... "Karen Tumulty and I-- we're not advocates, we're not columnists." (Tumulty, a contributor to Swampland, is Time's national political correspondent.) "It's our responsibility not to be labeled left or right."

Is it now?

"That is just so wrong," said a commenter (Lee) at Swampland, who had watched the interview. "Your job is to tell the truth." (Regardless of how it gets you categorized.)

It's our responsibility not to be labeled left or right... That's a political journalist blurting out a deep truth about his profession. Carney and Tumulty really do define their responsibility this way: to avoid what would get them labeled... especially by peers but also other onlookers-- and of course potential critics. When you actually feel a responsibility like that it not only makes you timid; but you look for opportunities to demonstrate that you are independent, not "in the tank," non-aligned, the professional skeptic. You are constantly proving your political innocence, which is a rhetorical--not an informational or truthtelling--task. ...

posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on August 8, 2007

Seeing the Future (the next Congressional thing on Iraq)
posted by amberglow at 8:09 PM on August 8, 2007

Supporting these folks just reinforces and enshrines their badly mistaken beliefs that gay men thinking they're hot is somehow something you can sue about, or some horrible thing, instead of the enormous compliment it really was. Do they sue when ugly girls catcall them? Do they sue when their calendars are sold to men as well as women? WTF?
posted by amberglow at 8:11 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

oops--sorry about that...wrong thread...
posted by amberglow at 8:12 PM on August 8, 2007

That WSJ opinion piece is just simply bullshit. The notion that loss of respect for the President is some sort nefarious lefty plot is just ludicrous.

The author may cherish the day he was granted asylum here, but his apparent love for the strong man seems to indicate he left more than a little of his heart back home.

I'd say its just that characteristic of Bush's, his confusion of intransigence for strength, has contributed most toward his loss of popularity and respect, as his failure to acknowledge and correct his own mistakes leads to ever more arrogant and dangerous ventures at home and abroad.

He's lost every bit of that respect through his own efforts.
posted by hwestiii at 8:55 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

(Wrong thread or not, that comment probabably fit here just as well, amberglow.)
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 10:45 PM on August 8, 2007

From rockhopper's link:

"But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."

Because what sets America apart from the former Soviet bloc is that under Communism, you weren't free to say what you want. In America, you should be proud to not be free to say what you want.


"His new book, "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination" (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November."

OK. He's a conspiracy nut as well.
posted by bardic at 11:21 PM on August 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Never have so many liars been given so much credence in such little time.
posted by Skygazer at 9:06 AM on August 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

We're seeing way way way too much of this, based on a variety of stupid reasoning: Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11
posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on August 9, 2007

Cheney urging strikes on Iran
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on August 10, 2007

Bill Kristol said Wednesday, "the strategy is working, it certainly deserves another six months to play out. "

He and all the others have been saying that for years and years now--the famous Friedman Unit.
posted by amberglow at 4:10 PM on August 10, 2007

Way to read the thread, amberglow.
posted by blacklite at 5:36 PM on August 11, 2007

i did read it, blacklite--FAIR are the ones who originated it, not atrios or any of the others mentioned above.
posted by amberglow at 9:36 AM on August 12, 2007

and Gonzales is actually in Iraq now.
posted by amberglow at 9:10 AM on August 13, 2007

« Older Creepy Deepies   |   Burnin, Burnin Love Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments