Redstate

but in fact it's not entirely obvious what Bush will do. Remember you're deriving this entire argument from campaign blurbs: "We will prevail" vs. "draw down troop levels." These are not policies, they are sound bite come-ons.

Though the former does sound a hell of a lot better. All of my ambition for this Democrat candidacy is wrapped up in a desire to do the job better, not to scrap everything Bush has accomplished in Iraq, bring the troops home and tell them that they braved death for over a year for nothing. Bush is a screwup of global proportions, true, but what's needed is someone who can clean up his mess, not run away from it.

I for one can't afford to be a one-issue candidate, and I believe the Bush domestic/economic policy is a looming disaster. Read Sun-Tzu: you can't fight a war with empty granaries. But I am not at all pleased to hear such things from Kerry.

it seems to me, not to vote for Kerry.  His "sound bite come-ons" are so nuanced they appear that Kerry wants to have it both ways on the war.  Most folks don't think Bush is a "screwup of global proportions", so thus, they are not willing to buy Kerry's flip-flop BS.

As far as fighting a war with empty granaries you'd have to expound on that further, Bush could certainly stand to cut gov't spending, but the economic growth we are experiencing has a real base (unlike much of the credit-fueled boom of the 90's).  In addition Bush has signed numerous free-trade agreements and, last I heard, we are able to fight this war using a much smaller % of our GDP than we did in Vietnam.

Bush could certainly stand to cut gov't spending, but the economic growth we are experiencing has a real base (unlike much of the credit-fueled boom of the 90's).

The end of the 1990s included a tech stock bubble of enormous proportions, the after-effects of which we are still dealing with today.  But your broad indictment of the 90s boom and your comparison of it to today's slow recovery seems to show, at best, the triumpth of partisanship over reason.  

(1)  What evidence do you have that the 90s boom was "credit fueled" in a way that prior booms were not (start your explanation with the Reagan boom of the mid and late 80s)?

(2)  What evidence do you have that this recovery is "real" in a way that the recovery of late 1991 through 1993 was not?

Bush would give his right arm to have the recovery of late 91-93 in the place of the current recovery.  Let's not pretend otherwise.  (By the way, I share your hope that Bush makes significant cuts in domestic spending and, more importantly, take on SS reform.  Even with such spending cuts and entitlement reform, however, the current tax cuts are likely mere deferrals in view of the impending retirement of the Boomers.)

Or we can give it a half-assed try, and cross our fingers.  

We had a time in which we could have increased the chance of a win in Iraq.  That time has passed.  (As you know, I would've preferred more troops in Iraq from the start.)  At this point, our choice is to (a) continue current funding and troop levels, and hope for the best or (b) retreat, and ensure a loss.

Kerry's present noises are truly unpleasant, and if he indeed cuts-and-runs, you are right:  We will lose.  But a vote for Bush is not a vote for victory.  On Iraq, it is at best a vote for the lesser of two evils.

Productivity jumped 17% from 2000 to 2004. This is one thing that can make the economic gains sustainable long-term, and it also raises our standard of living.

We have had 4.8% growth in the past year, well above long-term average.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

The "We had a time in which we could have increased the chance of a win in Iraq. That time has passed."

Defeatists look at the existence of opposition as something fundamental. It is not.

The issue is the path towards stability, democracy, freedom, and internal secutiry.

Iraq's political development is on track, the  building up of its security capability is on track. Insurgents are getting captured and locked up or killed. Democratic elections have been held and are being held. The 'center is holding'.  

The reality is the opposite of what the defeatists would believe. Saddam had a chance to bog us down. He didnt. Then they tried a 'resistance'. The spring 'uprising' fizzled, and the bad guys retreated. (unfortunately, we did let fallujah fester rather than force our way in there, but fallujah is a backwater city than can be mopped up over time).  Since the spring, the new interim Govt has started taking charge. More Iraqis are doing more of the security heavy lifting. It's a good thing. We are going in the right direction.

See more on Liberating Iraq blog:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

but you'll have to agree it is certainly touch and go with regards to how ultimately the power blocs align themselves. Even with massive popular support, political will, and three times the personnel, there would be no guarantee of a coalition "victory" in the long term.

Here's what's alarming: an ex-Baathist is now in charge of the country. He is personally going to Najaf with an olive branch in one hand, a Kalashnikov in the other. The Shia/Sunni civil war all the multilateralists are afraid of is no more than one or two missteps away, and that condition will probably hold for several years. Iran is actively fomenting the Sadrists. The Kurds have retaken their ancestral cities, and Turkey is nervous. Al Qaeda is there causing all the mayhem it can. The whole country is holding its breath. Nobody can guarantee an outcome, except the militants who can guarantee a sh-tstorm if they get their way.

That's why the one thing you want to hear from the U.S. leader right now is "We'll do what it takes to win." Not "we'll stay the course." Definitely not "we'll bring our boys home."

underpaid, saddled with debt, unable to afford health care for your family, or unable to find work at all.

The question is whether that state is characteristic of most Americans.  Likely answer: no.

Here's what's alarming: an ex-Baathist is now in charge of the country.

No, what is alarming is how much utter nonsense - like this comment - pervades the discussion, especially from the 'sky-is-falling' defeatists.

Let me correct the record because you are maligning a good man:

Allawi quit the Baathists in his early 20s - over 30 years ago! He had to become a Baathist to get a decent education, in England. While in England, he started an opposition group, fighting for Iraqi human rights, as Saddam rose to power and made Iraq more and more a prison to his tyranny.  Saddam's goons came to England and tried to assassinate him; almost succeeded too, broke into his house and attacked him with an axe ... and after 30 years of principled opposition to Saddam, building an effective exile group you give him the label "ex-baathist" (if you want to play that game, Senator Byrd is an ex-Klansman and Sen Kerry is an ex-Communist-sympathizer)

... PHOOEY!

Iraqis say instead "we went from the butcher to the doctor". Maybe they know something you don't.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/07/media-memes-allawi-strongman.html

Liberating Iraq blog:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

I didn't know that about Allawi. No need to assume malice on my part - simple ignorance will do.

Still he is a Sunni, no? And what we are seeing in Southern Iraq is a violent jockeying for position, complete with foreign interference, wouldn't you say?

Now that the facts are straight would you say civil war is:

an impossibility,

unlikely,

possible,

probable,

inevitable,

to soon to tell?

I'm going with 3 and 6 myself.

I am three of these four (note that "underpaid" and "unable to find work at all" are mutually exclusive) yet I am delighted to hear that productivity is on the rise.

Don't assume, Jordan, that just because one is grindingly poor one doesn't care about anybody but oneself.

is that Mahdi army is full of criminals, the Iraqis know it, and now have the strength to take it out.

He [Allawi] is personally going to Najaf with an olive branch in one hand, a Kalashnikov in the other.

Let me explain the situation by referring to ..

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/08/sistani-in-london-al-sadr-in-retr
eat.html

The interim Government is also showing its mettle in other ways, offering amnesty for minor crimes: weapons possession, hiding intelligence about terror attacks or harboring terrorists -- to persuade people 'misled into these activities' to come forward with information on attacks to share it with police. "This amnesty is not for people ... who have killed. Those people will be brought to justice, starting from Zarqawi down to the person in the street," Allawi said. This makes it a velvet fist to separate terrorists from their supporting players - Bring in the 'small fry' so we can catch the 'big fish' and make Iraq safer. ...

Allawi (reported in Iraq the Model) showed a strong tone against Sadr's militia in his latest news conference:

      "... most people think that Sadr militia will soon be history and most of them think this is a good thing since they know that a large number of people who joint Sadr militia were originally thieves and looters who want chaos to spread so that they can repeat what they did after the war. This was confirmed today by Ayad Allawi in the press conference I mentioned above when he said that out of the 1200 Sadr's militia members who where arrested or surrendered there were 400 convicts who were released by Saddam just prior to the war...

      Allawi seemed so determined in this conference and when one reporter asked him, "Why do you maintain the pressure and continue to push things to the extreme against Iraqi citizens?" He answered the reporter with a harsh tone, "What citizens?? These are outlaws and no one is allowed to break the law here no matter who he was" and he added, "We will continue to push harder and we will keep the course against these criminals"

This news is all good: The Government is showing confidence and resolve, Al-Sadr, while begging for the old trick of 'Hudna' to regroup is not getting it; his 'Army' is exposed as a band of criminals; and the Iraqi Police, ING, local Najaf authorities, and MNF soldiers are together removing these bandits: Iraqi Police are reporting success: "The operations have been a complete success. Over 1200 criminals have surrendered to Iraqi forces."

So, you make it sound as if there is something dangerous going on when the Iraqi Government is taking strong action. The opposite. It is a sign that the new sovereign Iraqi Government is starting to function on its own. During the CPA time, Iraq was like a baby; now it's starting to walk.

The Mahdi people that they face are CRIMINALS nothing more nothing less. They are thugs that al-Sadr and his henchmen has hired. They are - fortunately - not very good fighters and can be dislodged with reasonable effort. Coalition plus Iraqi secuirty have been doing just that. Some of the money is from the "take" on Najaf shrines, which is one reason why taking Al-Sadr out of Najaf is key - it dries up his money source. His other money source is Iran, and IMHO that money source will dry up if and when Bush is re-elected (for reasons why, see my blog).

You say:

The Shia/Sunni civil war all the multilateralists are afraid of is no more than one or two missteps away, and that condition will probably hold for several years.

Well, these "fears" have proven totally unfounded as Iraqi civil society has taken hold; only who don't see nor understand Iraqi situation would still think that. Zarqawi tried and failed to spark any kind of civil war.

In fact, the danger in April was a 'combined resistance' but that too fell off, as the vast majority of Shiites and Kurds, as well as many Sunni, want nothing to do with the so-called 'resistance'. As one Iraqi puts it:

 "The American soldier is trying to protect me from the terrorists and the American president saved me from Saddam's regime. If this is an occupation then I show my deepest respect to it and if such suicide attacks are called resistance then let the resistance go to hell." - Hoshyar Zakhoi-Duhok/Iraq

see:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

and

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

85% of Iraqis from all sides want to support the new Iraqi government. And that is a unity Government, not a sectarian one.

Iran is actively fomenting the Sadrists. The Kurds have retaken their ancestral cities, and Turkey is nervous.

Finally, something I can agree with.  #1 is a matter of closing borders and getting new Iraqi Government recognized and dealing bilaterally with neighbors. Very Good Progress in latest meeting with Arab states on securing borders.

Al Qaeda is there causing all the mayhem it can. The whole country is holding its breath.

Of course Al Qaeda is trying, but you miss the biggest story. When Zarqawi bombed the churches, it was UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED by Iraqi leaders. Even Al-Sadr condemned it. As they condemned the previous bombing in Barquoba, of the police station.

 Nobody can guarantee an outcome, except the militants who can guarantee a sh-tstorm if they get their way

The terrorists have already tried and done their best. We, the coalition can guarantee success through perseverence in moving forward with democratic elections and building of Iraqi security forces. In other words, keep doing the right things and doing things right, and we'll get there.

feel like those conditions apply to them, or whether they feel insecure about a future where they might be one or all of those things. Also there are the cruddy economic numbers out this month. Employment is lagging, along with, as I recall, consumer confidence.

We're currently running the largest federal deficits in history and, this from Meet the Press this morning, a full third of those deficits can be attributed to tax cuts. That's according to OMB.

argument until I reorganize my flashcards.

I did not say "productivity is bad." It's cold comfort because the leaner, meaner workforce doesn't have much room for me. Productivity is also going to turn into inflation if the employment and consumer confidence numbers don't get a leg up, though the second indicator is showing some life.

I just see little benefit in pretending that it's as strong as the recovery of the early 90s.

The featured article in The New Republic is called False Positive.

It's time to embrace a simpler thesis: Voters say the economy isn't getting better because, as far as they're concerned, it's not. And perhaps the best explanation for this perception is that Americans are facing rising economic insecurity even as basic economic statistics improve. In March, for example, unemployment and inflation were both low. But roughly half of Americans agreed that "America no longer has the same economic security it has had in the past," while another fifth thought the statement could be true in the future. By contrast, just 27 percent believed the poor conditions of recent years represent merely the normal downside of the business cycle.

This pervasive public anxiety is the main reason that usually sunny Americans are cloudy about their families' economic futures. It may also explain why voters have proved increasingly skeptical of good economic numbers--not just in this election, but also in 1992 and 1994, when, on paper, the economy was not nearly as bad as voters thought it was. Put simply, the statistics pundits love to cite don't capture what most Americans feel: an increasing financial pinch that is putting them at ever greater economic risk.

The truth is more Americans believe that their future prosperity is at great risk, and that fear is not irrational.  When you combine the rapidly rising costs of healthcare with the rapidly rising cost of tuition, it's rational to be concerned about your ability to maintain or improve your lifestyle.

The signs are everywhere. Fourteen million more Americans lack health insurance now than two decades ago. Meanwhile, corporations have abandoned "defined-benefit pensions" that offer a fixed payment in retirement in favor of more risky "defined-contribution" plans like 401(k)s. And, according to Princeton economist Henry Farber, the effect of job loss on work hours, pay, and prospects for reemployment has worsened substantially since the 1980s. Indeed, in area after area, there's evidence of a vast shift in the economic security of most Americans--a massive transfer of financial risk from corporations and the government onto families and individuals.

So, it's great to say productivity is way up, but it only matters to individuals if it translates to gains in their financial security and their overall lifestyle.  Neither is happening today.

I didn't know that about Allawi. No need to assume malice on my part - simple ignorance will do.

Okay, climbdown accepted. I am a bit touchy because Krugman wrote a malicious diatribe about Iraq today, full of defeatist nonsense and outright lies. He slandered Allawi as a "thug", and mid-way through my write-up debunking it, I stumbled on your quote. It set me off.

"Still he is a Sunni, no?"

Yes, as are 25% of Iraqis. What of it? the 32 ministries have Sunnis, Kurds, Shiites etc. in them. Saddam and his Government was Sunni-dominated, whereas the current Government is broad-based reflecting Iraq's real demographics. This is fine for all Iraqis except a few ex-baathists.

As I said, about 85% support the new Iraqi Government, and Allawi and the Governments move to bolster security seem to be popular. Frankly, the people's biggest complaint during the CPA era was security and crime - not insurgency, but simple crime. Saddam let loose 100,000 criminals in late 2003 and they are a pestilence on the country, egged on by the baathists and insurgency. The real risk in Iraq is continuation of that crime and chaos causing a despair that leads to 'strongarm' rule. IMHO the new Governments attitude is about right: Using carrot (amnesty) and stick (death penalty) to get insurgent supporters to stop; and using sweeps to get criminals off the streets.

"And what we are seeing in Southern Iraq is a violent jockeying for position, complete with foreign interference, wouldn't you say?"

No.  What happened in these places is that Iraqi authorities started arresting al-Sadr's supporters, so his supporters started striking back by kidnapping police etc. Well, after kicking Mahdi army butt in May and getting them out of most places, they were told to disband, but have continued on, with a 'ceasefire'. In the meantime, Iraqi police and ING have gotten stronger.

"Now that the facts are straight would you say civil war is:"

It's NOT a civil war, is the point. al-Sadr hired thugs and made a play for power.  He failed. Now coalition and Iraqi forces are in the process of cleaning it up.  Civil War is not likely coming out of this, because al-Sadr has been exposed, especially in Najaf, as up to no good. Now his army has been exposed as a band of criminals.

And further attacks by al Sadr wont win him friends, especially now as they are attacks on Iraqi security forces, not outsiders - So it is no more likely to foment a civil war in Iraq than is another Al Qaeda attack in USA to make us convert to Islam.

Here's a good description of al-Sadr's Madhi army through Iraqi eyes, from an Iraqi blog:

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

... since I remember that in western musical tradition there is something called Grand Beggar Opera. As I watch the poor misguided young men, many of them delinquents and ex convicts stupidly and carelessly roaming the streets of certain slums of Baghdad brandishing their Kalashnikovs and RPG's, I am reminded of this term. You might call it the Grand Beggar Army. The way that these fools expose themselves to certain death and extermination with complete lack of any kind of skill in combat and a kind of wanton destructive and blind passion, cannot but inspire a kind of disdainful pity and disgust. The terrorists of other places are quite different; sneaking, treacherous, skillful, clearly with military training and combat experience. Just look at the casualty figures, 300-400 against a handful amongst the forces of Law and Order.

However, what must be done must be done. These people just do not understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom to them is anarchy and a kind of license to engage in an orgy of wanton destruction and abandon to every base instinct. They want to impose their degenerate retarded confused hallucinations on everybody; not to mention the profound complexes of inferiority and hatred born of decades, nay, centuries of depravation and downtrodden living. They are indeed a minority, but a dangerous, lunatic and murderous minority; serpents and blind scorpions let loose; the menace cannot be underestimated.

Their leader has announced on Friday that If the President Ghazi Al Yawer, says that America is a friend, He, "this leader", says that America is the Enemy! And why is America the enemy, pray? Because she is the only Power in history that has allowed you to practice your religious rites in total freedom and abandon after not only decades, but centuries of oppression and bloody persecution; in fact since the seventh century A.C.! America has done you a favor that would not be repaid if you spend the next thirteen centuries in faithful friendship and alliance with her. Such incredible ingratitude is beyond belief. It seems that this freedom hitherto unknown to you has driven you mad and completely bereft of any rhyme or reason.

But no, the vast majority of the Shiaa people are not with you. In fact those fighting you in Najaf today are the true sons of the holy city. All these policemen, joined by the tribesmen of surrounding countryside (a fact little known by many) are the indigenous real people of the region. You are going to be wiped out and defeated, not by the might of the MNF but by the hostility and rejection of the ordinary majority who are only now beginning to find the way and the means.

But it is nevertheless, tragic and depressing how profoundly misled and confused are these people.

To sum up "too soon to tell" was the right answer when trouble started in early April. But now that Mahdi Army has been dealt with twice, now that al-Sadr tried to spark a rebellion and was rebuked by fellow clerics and the Shiite populace, the answer to your question is "highly unlikely" and "risk of blowup decreasing over time as sovereign Iraqi Government takes root".

The issue is the path towards stability, democracy, freedom, and internal secutiry.

Iraq's political development is on track, the  building up of its security capability is on track. Insurgents are getting captured and locked up or killed. Democratic elections have been held and are being held. The 'center is holding'.  

So far as I can ascertain, success in Iraq currently depends on Sistani's continuing existence as a moderating influence among religious Shi'ites.*  If Sistani dies or reverses course, there is a potential for a massive power vacuum.  (Something of a contradiction in terms, but let's pass my poor syntax for a moment.) Sistani seems unlikely to reverse course, but his health is poor -- and there are rumors he is dying.  

Yes, some measures show that some facets of Iraqi life is improving.  But anarchy, rather than society, still rules.  (I'll not call it an insurrection -- there is no single "enemy" in Iraq, but rather a range of enemies that hate each other nearly as much as they hate us and the present Iraqi administration.)  What emerges from the anarchy depends on the continued existence and good judgement of Sistani.

von

*Despite Sistani's differences with us, he has (surprisingly) been consistently pro-democratic and against the uprising.

People say the economy isnt getting better because the biased liberal media tells them it isnt, and keeps throwing negative stuff at them to worry about.

The meaure of how people themselves feel is doing FINE. Consumer confidence is up this past month: 107.

"Consumer confidence surged during the past month to its highest level since the beginning of the year, with Americans feeling better about their own finances and more optimistic about the future despite renewed terror threats and rising oil prices."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186815/posts

Now  what's funny is how the whole article about the surge is tinged with political overtones, and how they tried to put a cloud around the silver lining.

All the Democrats are griping, all the Republicans are happy. It's as if people are just reflecting their political biases.

As for garbage like this:

"The signs are everywhere. Fourteen million more Americans lack health insurance now than two decades ago. "

What garbage! we have something like 50 million more Americans. Lifetime expectancies are higher than ever, and healthcare delivery is better than it has ever been, certainly better than 2 decades ago. Things that killed you 2 decades ago wont kill you today. And not just AIDS. And for those 'without health insurance' we are spending more government money to care for them than ever before.

whoa whoa whoa feeelings ...  :-)

feelings are one thing, but how is that helpful in describing what is really going on? People's feelings are reflection of perceptions, and perceptions can mislead. People felt 'great' in the late 1990s bubble economy, before the fall.

The best 'feelings' measure is consumer confidence and that is doing fine recently, at 107.

The manufacturers ISM numbers are doing GREAT.

And being able to produce 17% more than you could 4 years ago is more of a hard reality that translates in higher standard of living longer term.

Feelings are not yet fully incorporating the full news of the l4.8% growth of the last year, or the robust expansion in productivity.

IOW - Feelings are an economic 'trailing indicator', but will come around to reflecting the known real stats over time.

So go with the leading indicators like the real growth numbers. Other stats will follow.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

We can win. Or we can run. It should be obvious by now which candidate will do which.

The current arrest warrants for Chalabi and his son are about the one millionth example of the judgement of the Bush team.  Chalabi's their guy.  They didn't want to hear from those who told them Chalabi could not be trusted.  I simply have zero confidence that Bush will win the war by virtue of his rhetoric or that Kerry will lose the war by virtue of it.  The Bush team's judgement has been atrocious in the prosecution of this war.  I believe that it is far from obvious that Bush will win it.

"It did not say "productivity is bad." It's cold comfort because the leaner, meaner workforce doesn't have much room for me."

It has room for about 139 million people (household survey), and someone as articulate as you can surely find something, eg ,our company is hiring.

Now, if you mean it's a globally competitive market out there ... yup, agree. Cant take much for granted, and not many 'cushy jobs' out there anymore. but 'lean and mean' doesnt mean you can't make a great living doing something, or we wouldnt have a $11+ trillion economy.

"Productivity is also going to turn into inflation"

Um, that's economic illiteracy. Actually, the opposite is true. Productivity increases encourage lower prices. Good example is semiconductors, which have been increasing capability and reducing prices per bit at a rate of ~50%/ year.

Chalabi's their guy.

Nah.  Chalabi's his own guy.  Did they trust in him way too much?  Yeah.  Did they learn from their mistake?  Yes again.

I believe that it is far from obvious that Bush will win it.

At least he intends to; more than we can say for Kerry.

is babbling about Chalabi... you get your New Yorker talking points and you forget to followup to find out if there's anything behind the latest conspiracy theory.

Well, latest news is it was big pile of nothing.

Chalabi was less of a threat to our national security than Sandy Berger.

The Bush-haters make a big deal out of smallest things and then dont see the plank in their own eyes. Jeez.

Let's talk about atrotious judgment:

FDR was told in 1940 about Alger Hiss. That he was a Soviet spy. He ignored the warnings. FDR kept him in the Government for 5 years, and made him a senior State Dept official.  Hiss was the most senior spy in American Government since Benedict Arnold.

"The Bush team's judgement has been atrocious in the prosecution of this war."

50 million people liberated and you say this!?!?

we should stop talking about the household survey when measuring total number of jobs?

and a good discussion ...

linked it to the Liberating Iraq blog:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

Agree that Chalabi is his 'own guy' but if you look, we did not trust him much at all, and attempts by some to help him out were invariably shot down by the internal naysayers, namely the CIA.  Now I dont have much confidence in CIA, they screwed up the 1996 coup attempt and left many Iraqis out to dry, but in the end, it was internal anti-Chalabi folks who won out in most of these battles.

The fact is that Bremer not Chalabi was making main decisions during CPA era, and now Chalabi is effectively out. So when did we trust Chalabi? We never really did, but we gave him some $$$ but we had even worse characters in the Iraqi Governing Council - and heck, we give Egypt $8 billion and that WHOLE COUNTRY is a far worse investment that the tiny amount given to the Iraqi National Congress group.

That particular Chalabi/Iranian smear tempest-in-a-teapot obscures the simple fact: Chalabi was pushed aside this Spring MAINLY FOR DEMANDING THE RIGHT POLICIES! He did NOT like what Brahimi was cooking up, and publicly said so. Bremer hated that, and Brahimi made them push Chalabi aside as the 'price' of helping out. Chalabi called for Iraqi sovereignty, rejected the idea of UN coming in and running things (on that most Iraqis agree!)  

Here's the rub: UN's Brahimi was a malefactor not a help. The US went along as it wanted the UN 'stamp of approval' but this is a corrupt stamp from a corrupted body (only you cant say the truth and get our so-called 'allies' to agree, so we go along with it).

We escaped near-disaster thanks to the Iraqi Governing council - appointing Allawi, Yaher, and the other top leaders instead of waiting for Brahimi's selections. Smart!!!  Brahimi, the old supporter of Saddam's regime when he headed the Arab league, was casting about for a more baathist-friendly candidate. Brahimi was even in touch with the Fallujah resistance ... PHEW! ... The IGC managed to stop the UN from destroying Iraq's future.

Chalabi helped to make the interim Government a successful one, and that, and for that alone, he deserves some credit as a true pro-democracy Iraqi. whether he deserves to hold office in Iraq, that's another story.

I just find it INCREDIBLE how real scandals (like Saddams oil-for-food $10 billion scandal) are ignored and made-up scandals (like Chalabi) are considered of import.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

why not use it? It added 600,000 jobs in July and all we talk about is  a blip in payroll numbers for a single month, when we've added 1.5 million in the past 11 months even in the payroll survey:

"Total nonfarm employment was little changed (+32,000) in July at 131.3

million.  Since its recent trough in August 2003, payroll employment has risen

by 1.5 million."

everyone knows you need to look at longer term averages.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

It seems there is a desire to desperately avoid looking at any positives in a mostly positive economic picture. The only real negative is that in our dynamic economy, most new jobs (as usual) are coming not from established companies but new ones. That's a reason not to simply ignore the household survey.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com  

 

Because it is not meant to or designed to measure total jobs created.

This is not much of a debate among professional economists. Nobody uses the household survey to measure total jobs. Even Greenspan has come out publicly against that idea.

just came up out of Iraq. Now he's getting charged now with money laundering.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1187483/posts

If previous poster (timsel) was talking about that, so be it, and my apologies for assuming he was dragging up the two month's old story that were pegged (IMHO unfairly) on Chalabi at the time.

Since cr*p like this seems to stick to that guy, in the end it is better we cut him loose.

The fact is, when faced with a Stalin-like guy like Saddam, you have few choices. Chalabi was a brave opponent as an exile. Thankfully, the new Iraq has plenty of patriots and pro-democratic leaders who dont have Chalabi's baggage.

Chalabi's on his own now and will have to defend himself.  I wont.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

Yes.  I say

"The Bush team's judgement has been atrocious in the prosecution of this war."

and I could provide you with plenty of right-wing commentary that agrees with that assessment.  In the recent past, Tacitus wrote several posts on his own blog that, IMO, match my sentiment.  Choose to close your eyes to it if you wish or simply get all of your news form Limbaugh and FoxNews.  But yeah, I standby my assessment.  And I didn't want Bush to perform this poorly, and I supported this war, and I still do.  I just don't think Bush's team has been anywhere approaching competent on the post-war situation.

What do you make of Kerry?  Is the guy an opportunist who will say and do whatever his pollsters tell him, or does the guy simply not understand the war or the stakes?

Dang!!!

I spent an hour constructing a brilliant and overly long reply to you, and just as I was about to hit 'post' my browser blew up!

The jist is this:

I'd rate Bush an "A" on Global War on Terror

and a "B" (for Bremer) on post-war Iraq.

I of course have my reasons, and they are not

based on Rush - but speaking of which, can Iraq be that bad off when they have now got TALK RADIO:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/07/iraqis-exercise-their-free-speech
.html

Reasons/details I will elide, but one point to make is that IMHO Bush is hit by the 'impossible expectations' game by his critics, as if every setback is a failure at the top and not simply the reality of facing and enemy that wants to kill you and others.  

We can discuss Iraq details if you wish, here or on the Liberating Iraq blog:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

Yes, Kerry is laying the groundwork for cutting and running.

It's not just his words. It's the vibes he sends. It's his history, his party.

Can you even imagine a Joe Lieberman as the nominee in 2004? The Democrats won't let Kerry stay and fight. He will have to cut and run.

As a Boomer, I can attest that our actions accumulate; we become more solid, which in a way is a good thing, but by my age, and Kerry's, we can't utterly change.

It would be like William F. Buckley becoming a Trotskyite.

He'd be undoing his whole life since the war.

His party just can't stay and fight. Their whole structure is antiwar. it doesn't matter what Kerry says, or feels. he can't stay. He'll have to get out.

Allawi is a Shi'ite, as noted above by tacitus.

Ghazi Yawer, the new Iraqi President is Sunni.

And there is a Kurd and a Shiite as VPs.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3765415.stm

You make quite an assumption when you say:

So far as I can ascertain, success in Iraq currently depends on Sistani's continuing existence as a moderating influence among religious Shi'ites.*  If Sistani dies or reverses course, there is a potential for a massive power vacuum.

First, it's clear that there are MANY moderate Shia leaders in Iraq. Sistani is the top man but he's not the only one. Sadr is a very low kid on the totem pole. If Sistani dies, his "successor" is unlikely to be a radical. That's just not the character of the top Shia leadership in Iraq.

The Shiite community is mostly moderate.

With or without Sistanti, who has been helpful, mainly by not being harmful to the transition in Iraq.

Pessimism in Iraq is not warranted - we are on track to succeed in building a new democratic Iraq:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

when in the early 1990s was there yearly growth stronger than this?

Name a SINGLE QUARTER in the 1990s with growth as strong as Q3 03 ... you cant!

why oh why are people insisting on being pessimists, when the facts DONT WARRANT IT??

Here's my source:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

you care to cite your source for this nonsense about 'chaos'?  defeatist bunk!

No worries.

I just find it INCREDIBLE how real scandals (like Saddams oil-for-food $10 billion scandal) are ignored and made-up scandals (like Chalabi) are considered of import.

I've read that the source of the documents around the oil-for-food scandal is, in fact, Chalabi.  I've also read that Chalabi has not shared those docs with us yet.  This is all from memory and I haven't followed this scandal very closely, so my memory could easily be faulty on this.  Are there other sources of docs for the oil-for-food scandal besides Chalabi and the INC?  

Chalabi was on FoxNews last night by phone from Tehran.  There was also a FoxNews contributor/former military officer who was supporting Chalabi as a friend to the US.  That former officer was saying that he thought Chalabi had done important work in the oil-for-food scandal and he was eager to see the documented evidence of the scandal to be made publicly available.  Again, this is all from memory.  I might have the details wrong.

The Shiite community is mostly moderate.

Support?

As for replacing Sistani, I'm unaware of another Shi'ite leader of anywhere near comparable stature.  (I do know of several less-attractive pretenders, however.)  Should he die, there will be a power struggle.

I know how frustrating it can be.  I will pass on your offer to discuss Iraq details over at your(?) blog.  Perhaps another time.  I've been discussing Iraq on blogs since about a month before the war started.  I used to post on Eschaton under the pseudonym Erik(conservative), arguing on behalf of Bush and the war.  I did that for months.  I've never soured on the objectives of the war, but I have soured on Bush and his team's ability to accomplish those objectives.  All of this is to say that I am passing up the opportunity to discuss this further with you out of simple weariness.  It's nothing personal.  I may yet take you up on the offer.

4.8% growth in the last 12 months

I presume that you're not referring to an annual growth rate, but rather the estimated, annualized growth rate that certain economists projected for the 3Q.  Assuming this is correct, your figure is old:

``The high energy prices are taking a toll on consumers and now, with less hiring, there is less income as well,'' said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp. in Cleveland. DeKaser marked down his estimate for third-quarter growth to 3.7 percent from 4.8 percent.

Source:  Bloomberg (Aug. 9) (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aj85aMgJvcDY&
refer=home)  By the way, the survey originally projected a 4.4% growth rate, now marked down to 3.9%.

If I've misunderstood you and you're referring to other figures or data, please advise.  

I haven't be able to find the quartly growth rates for the relevant period under the last recovery (roughly, 1993-1994), so I don't know if we experienced a quarterly growth rate comparable to the 3.9% that the survey currently projects for the current quarter.  It wouldn't surprise me if we missed that mark by a bit.  By this time in the cycle, however, job growth was much farther along -- and this is the more relevant figure in judging Bush's re-election chance.  

here.

you care to cite your source for this nonsense about 'chaos'?

My word was "anarchy" -- i.e., the breakdown of the rule of law -- not "chaos".  There's a significant difference. Anarchy can exist for a period of time without much chaos.  

Let's put it this way:  It is unclear whether a law passed in Baghdad can or will be enforced by the Iraqi government.  It is unclear whether the Iraqi government exercises any real control in the Kurdish areas or in certain Sunni "hot spots."  It is unclear who controls Najaf.  It is unclear whether legitimate businesses can operate in, and, more importantly, generate a profit in Iraq.  If there is a civil dispute between those businesses, it is unclear what law applies and whether it will be applied.

We do ourselves no favors by looking at the world as we wish it, rather than as it is.  (Worse, hopeful thinking like yours may cause us to relax our guard or fail to provide the money and people necessary to succeed in Iraq.)

 

See here for smagar's back-of-the envelope calculation that NATO doesn't have a meaningful number of additional troops to contribute.

Gonna use this.

Kerry's plan combines (a) impossible dreams with (b) claims that he'll do what Bush is already doing.  Not encouraging.

True, both sides use sound bites.  But dig a little a bit and find out which candidate is more serious about ushering democracy into Iraq.  Kerry, a Democrat, shows stunning indifference to democracy.

  I just finished reading Jean Smith's biography of Grant and one thing I am coming to realize more and more about Bush is how much he reminds me of Lincoln.

  Yes, he has made some questionable judgements about the competance of some of the people he has chosen to represent his efforts, but, with the possible exception of Roosevelt, we have not had a President who has such a combination of vision, fortitude, and good character.

  The failings he has seem to be that he tries to see the best in those who he surrounds himself with even when it is obvious that it is past time to replace them he is loyal to a fault. Just like Lincoln. Too often those who are available to him for certain jobs are not of the highest caliber.

  Like Lincoln with the leaders of his Army, the bureaucrats Bush has to handle are often the corrupt Washington insiders and ACLU/Lawyer flunkies that step on his every decent endeavor in order to preserve the status quo and prevent offense (or any real action) whether it is in regard to domestic or foreign issues. It is amazing how well we have done so far not to mention how little people really hear anything other than defeatest rhetoric, just like Lincoln. Its actually quite amazing. Read the book and you'll see what I mean.

You presume wrong ... 4.8% growth in the last 12 months, ie June 2003 to July 2004, meaning happened already. No estimating needed.

Very healthy growth numbers that already happened and is already under our belt.  The growth since nov 2001 averaged over 3.5% - very respectable 2.5 year average.

Liberating Iraq blog

as Sistani - they favor peace, dont like al-Sadr,

and are, if not pro-American, at least understanding and tolerating the situation and opposing the 'resistance'.

Similarly for most Shiites. al-Sadr is increasingly disliked. Iraqis want peace and security and democracy - at least 85% of them.

For more on this, see the Sistani article on my blog:

Liberating Iraq blog

and it is clear that the courts, police, legal system etc. are strengthening on a daily basis. Calling the situation 'anarchy' is like calling a construction site a 'devastated building'. It ignores the trends, and ignores the fact that building a civil society takes time ("Rome wasnt built in a day").

You say: "It is unclear whether a law passed in Baghdad can or will be enforced by the Iraqi government."

Actually, it is clear. Laws are being enforced.

Courts are passing down sentences for violations of law to criminals who break them.

All laws in all places? well, that's a matter of catching the criminals. There are places in every city in the US where you can find laws broken and crooks running free. it doesnt mean the nation is in 'anarchy'.

"It is unclear whether the Iraqi government exercises any real control in the Kurdish areas"

NONSENSE! Those are the most peaceful and law-abiding areas! In fact, Kurdish are

Kurds serve in the central Iraqi Government and the transitional constitution grants Kurds sufficient autonomy to maintain Iraq as a federal state.

"... or in certain Sunni "hot spots." "

If 'certain' means fallujah, agreed. But even in most Sunni areas, the central government, police, etc. are operating. eg in Baghdad, Ar Ramadi, etc.

"It is unclear whether legitimate businesses can operate in, and, more importantly, generate a profit in Iraq."

Nonsense. Business is booming, economy expanding and a new stockmarket just opened. Iraqi businessmen have faith in Iraq's future even if you do not.  Polls consistently show Iraqis believing that Iraq's future will be better than its past.

" If there is a civil dispute between those businesses, it is unclear what law applies and whether it will be applied."

More BS. TAL (transition administrative law) applies. Go to:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

then link to CPA, then link to the TAL on the web.

Iraq has more 'rule of law' today than it had for decades under the 'rule of saddam'.

"We do ourselves no favors by looking at the world as we wish it, rather than as it is. "

OH, INDEED!! Which is why I take umbrage at ignorant defeatism and negativity that is contrary to the real facts on the ground in Iraq. Things are cerainly not perfect there, but it dos nobody good to create simplistic and overly negative impressions of Iraq. There is a 'wishful-thinking' factor that kicks in with critics of the Iraq war and with media reporting there that negates much of the positive picture. Significant progress has been made - in law (interim constitution with more rights than any other Arab state, tranistional administrative law), in markets and economy (stock market opened, housing prices booming, construction booming, electricity and oil production above pre-war levels), in freedom of press (200 papers in baghdad, satellite TV available), etc., and the trends in Iraq are mostly positive, and it does a disservice to neglect that.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

To be decided shortly. Mahdi's army has been pushed into a pocket near the famous Ali Hussein shrine. ... Have an article on that too, at:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com