You ask the right questions and draw the proper conclusion, although unlike your dad, the prisoners at Gitmo have no chance for release "at the end of the war" and hence, other arrangements must be made.
Also, it just isn't clear that all of these people are terrorists. If you read that NJ piece I linked to, you'll realize just how haphazard the standards of what constitutes a terrorist were applied here.
It is tempting to throw up our hands at this situation and just let it be but the fact is, there have already been at least 3 cases of people being held at Gitmo that were released after more than a year of detention after being judged innocent. It begs the question of how many more there might be.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.06.2006 @ 07:06
I was for both of them.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 12.06.2006 @ 12:07
What in God's name are you blabbing about? I have no idea what you are referring to.
The appropriate role of the press in society is to report the facts as best they know them. ANd publishing the unsubstantiated charges from someone who couldn't possibly have seen what happened does not fall into that category.
The press apparently was trying to create a storyline where Zarqawi died some kind of heroe's death. In case you didn't know it, this is how "news" is gathered. It isn't only a question of the facts, the facts must also fit into a narrative that "marches" or is interesting. If that sounds more like creative writing to you than journalism, welcome to the early 21st century media business. It's not even a question of right or left. It's what will sell.
The fact that you don't see this makes you a naive consumer of news. It isn't so much the bias. It's the storyline that needs to be outed.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 11.06.2006 @ 13:50
I sure hope you're a female.
Failing that, I sure hope you're cute.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.06.2006 @ 13:29
Andy is correct. I would like to respond to each and every commenter but it really isn't possible. I get more than 200 emails, comments, and trackbacks to this site every day. Scrapiron has annoyed me on more than one occasion - but so has Tano, another regular commenter. And even Andy has gotten my hackles up on occassion, although it's hard to get too mad at someone who is so reasonable (lol).
In short, I pick and choose who to go to war against - and that has included conservatives on occassion.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 10.06.2006 @ 05:56
I think both problems you mentioned - the real threat of a Shia independence movement in the south where Sharia law has clamped down on Basra and other cities and where the British barely show their faces as well as the low level civil war brewing between the Kurds and Shias over oil in the north - these are issues that a stronger central government can address and work to solve. It should go without saying that now that Maliki has a full slate of Ministers (and a pushy US Ambassador), I daresay those problems will receive the attention they deserve.
And look for one of the first moves by the PM to grant general amnesty to the Sunni militias despite US pressure not to. I don't like the idea but it might be the right move. As you probably know, Maliki just released about 2000 prisoners a few days ago which makes me think he's going to go for full fledged amnesty.
Of course, that won't take care of AQI as you correctly point out. But military people say (not Rumsefeld who I have continuously supported firing) that AQI isn't more than 2000-2500 foreign fighters and getting smaller all the time. Read that Atlantic article I linked to for some good background on the jihadists.
The basic answer is that I agree with many sober minded observers that while the situation is grim, this is the kind of thing that can turn things around. It may be a pipe dream to believe much progress will be made before November but we'll see.
And engaging someone like you - author, pundit, etc. - is always a pleasure. Don't mind my temper and stop by anytime.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.06.2006 @ 10:39
You know full well that the usage of the term "slaughter" in the context of war is different than anywhere else.
In a ten year period from 1986-97, 688 police officers were killed in this country (http://www.fmew.com/archive/police/index.html). Using your definition, that constitutes a "slaughter" of police. But I don't hear anyone else saying that police are being "slaughtered" do you?
Of course not. And the casualties in Iraq are relative. On June 6, 1944 2500 Americans died in Normandy. While under your definition that could be considered a slaughter of soldiers, in the larger casualty picture of World War II, it is not.
As far as the Iraqi government is concerned, most of the sectarian violence that has been escalating while they dithered over who would run the national security establishment is carried out by irregular gangs - not the more organized militias. Reining in the gangs will be a lot easier than purging the militia from the police hence my belief that the number of killings - around 70 a day now (and yes, that is a slaughter by any definition) will decrease substantially.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.06.2006 @ 10:12
"Slaughter" of American soldiers is an outrageous exaggeration and you know it. And now that the Iraqis seem to have finally gotten their act together, I would fully expect the violence against civilians on the part of the irregulars to decrease dramatically.
And I can guarantee that the Republicans won't let people forget about Zarqawi - nor the lame and inexecusable response of Democrats to the news.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 9.06.2006 @ 09:34
Be glad to pass it along for you. Just clink the Amazon link on the left and I'll make sure Kofi gets it just as soon as all those reforms are in place.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.06.2006 @ 19:20
You're right - I didn't make it clear about the Dems chances for taking control of the House in November.
The inside the beltway politicos like Evans and Novak, Charlie Cook, and others that I've read have all said in the last month that the Dems are close enough in about 25 races to score a takeover.
The reason the magic number is 25 rather than 15 (Rep. margin in the House) is that the Republicans are set to take between 7-10 open seats themselves. So in order for the Dems to win, they need a net gain of 15 seats or 22-25 margin of victory in November.
That number of very vulnerable Republicans could go as high as 35. But no one is expecting the Dems to sweep them all.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.06.2006 @ 12:42
Pages (132) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78  80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132