Sunday, March 05, 2006

The Incredible Peter Pace and Other Sunday Funnies

Peter Pace on Meet the Press says things are going "very well" in Iraq. He says the pessimistic public polls are a result of the media coverage. The media's not getting enough "good news" out.

What a polly cracker.

Militias are a problem, he says. But not a major, long term problem, as long as the army and police remain loyal to the central government. The death squads are a problem, they need to be dealt with. Iraq needs to continue to vet who's joining the army and the police. He and Tim never quite get around to talking about how the Iraqi troops stood by and looked while the Shiite militias attacked Sunni mosques in Baghdad.

Sure, there weren't any WMD, but the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Hussein.


No commanders in the field have asked for more troops. We need more Iraqi troops.

(More Iraqi troops who don't do anything to stop the violence?)

Is the insurgency in its last throes? Tim asks.

The Iraqi people are waiting to see what their government does.

12 minutes into the interview, and I don't think Pace has answered a single question yet.

Pace says if William F. Buckley could get over to Iraq, he'd think differently. (Buckley recently wrote an op-ed that says the mission has failed.)

Tim brings up the narcotics coming out of Afghanistan. Pace says "we didn't do that." Neither Tim nor pace bring up the fact that opium production has increased since we invaded and set up Karzai's government.

Tim says the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, terror attacks on the government have increased. Pace says they've only increased 20 percent, which ISN'T THAT MUCH.

Four stars must not have to get tested for drugs.

Tim brings up the Pat Tillman fiasco--Tillman's dad says the military is lying. The Pentagon IG says the three investigations are unsatisfactory.

Pace says the investigations were thorough, but not thorough enough. So they're going to have another investigation that will be more thorough.

Holy Hannah!

Time's up, Pace goes back to the bunk bunker.

I want to believe that there may have been a time when Pace was a great Marine. But I wonder how long ago that might have been.

Now he's a talking point parrot.

Does he actually believe what he's saying, or does he realize he's just pushing propaganda?

Which possibility is more disturbing?


Is it any wonder that 85 percent of the troops in Iraq think they're in that country to avenge Saddam's involvement with 9-11?


Here's the NYT article on the "latest" Tillman investigation.

The first two investigations were conducted by Tillman's Army Ranger unit. The third was done by the parent unit, U.S. Army Special Operations Command.

In a telephone interview, Tillman's dad said, ""You're assigning the same folks that have been asked several times to address this issue. You're asking them to prosecute something when three times they have said there was nothing to prosecute? Do you really expect them to do it right?"


I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. One of the saddest casualties of this war has been the total loss of credibility of the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, and the individual services. I'm wondering how much longer the inspector general who ordered the fourth investigation of Tillman's death will be allowed to stay on active duty.


Murtha on Face the Nation:

Iraq is his definition of a Civil War.

The administration has mischaracterized the war for two years.

On Pace's statement that things are going very well: "Why should anyone believe anything Pace says?"

The only people who want us in Iraq: al Qaeda, Iran, and China. They want us to deplete our resources.

On the Bush administration: "These guys have used fear as a club."

Iraqis have to settle this thing themselves.


From Judd at Think Progress, Project for the New American Century founder Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday:
I think it’s become in people’s minds an emblem of the administration that just isn’t as serious about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should be. And even — I’m struck talking to conservatives and Republicans — they agree with the president on basic political philosophy, the they agree with his basic policy agenda, but they are worried that they just don’t seem to be able to execute as well as they should be.

This is classic Kristol: the neocon philosophy--which Kristol himself played a major role in shaping--is okay. It's the guys in the White House who screwed things up.

Expect to hear a whole lot more of this drumbeat in the weeks and months to come.


  1. Today's three and four stars have grown up in the Instant Communications age, as you and I have, Jeff. We all understand the impact of the visual presentation. It is much greater than the printed word, but has the potential defect of exposing errors. There is no "Hey, you know, can we change my answer to the last sentence slightly? I'd like to add xxxxxx."

    I wonder if their JCS meetings are so vapid and empty of meaningful content?

    Maybe the meetings resemble those at the FuehrerBunker and WehrmachHauptQuartier in late 1944 and early 1945, where they kept assuming units were whole and intact as they moved them around the maps.

    As for your commentary about the disconnect, via Kristol, this is classic preparation for the coming "Dolchstuss" - the "stab in the back" misrepresentation.

    This is the group THEY selected to carry out their plans of world conquest. If they selected incompetents and thieves, the PNAC should not get a "mulligan."

  2. They're trying to get a mulligan, but they sure don't deserve one.

  3. ha! They've already begun the "Dolchstoss" strategy. The nitwit Instabigot says today:

    "...The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media..."

    No link because I refuse to link to a third rate lawyer so incompetent he has to teach instead of actually lawyer for a living.

  4. fbg469:44 PM

    Amen, guys --

    The Great Revision is coming. It's going to be everybody's fault but the wing nuts and neocons.

    That is why blogs such as this one are going to be increasingly important -- it will bear witness to what actually happened.

    The next three years are going to be very, very interesting.

  5. Lurch and FBG,

    Yeah, that's what I've been trying to push to the top of the noise pile lately.

    Actually, I've been doing it for a while.

    Someone featured at Daou says the left and the liberal media "started this war."


  6. The Memory Hole, Think Progess, et al., need their own 24/7 cable network. Even then they'd probably have to alternate 5 minutes of news with 60 minutes of naked women to get any attention...

  7. The Great Revision may be coming, but I don't see how any remotely reasonable person could possibly fall for it.

  8. Oh I agree, Scott. No one will ever believe the "stab in the back" theory about the "liberal media."

    After all, the "cowardly John Kerry" mem failed, didn't it? And the "heroic" George Bush theme was of course scoffed at by everyone.

  9. Lurch:

    I said "no reasonable person" will believe it. I'm holding out hope (despite evidence to the contrary) that most of the population is reasonable.

  10. I'll just repeat what I said in my last comment, re: "cowardly Kerry" with the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts and "heroic" Mr Bush, who went AWOL when faced with a piss test.

    There is no "reasonable" in the American Lumpenproletariat, especially so when Diebold and ESS are counting the votes.

  11. Lurch:

    I can't argue with that. It really irked me to see politicians and political activists hammering Kerry personally liked that. As far as I'm concerned, the guy went to Viet Nam (more than Bush ever did), he was in dangerious situations, and the military gave him the medals. That's good enough for me. I'm not a huge Kerry fan, but I vehemently disagree with the tactic of hammering him personally over political disagreements.

    It also pisses me off that they've tried to do the same thing to Murtha.

    I also disagree with the author who went after Hilary Clinton in much the same personal manner, and I disagree with those who have gone after Bush in such a personal manner. My viewpoint is to put the issues on the table and let's argue about those. Forget about smearing people with names or what have you.