Me too. Please don’t take anything I say personally – it’s often hard to convey meaning through written words alone. You’re a good egg, even though you’re often wrong.

Again, you assume to much. I admit I am frequently critical of your writing, but you shouldn’t take that to mean I’m a bush supporter or even a Republican. I am neither and he is far from my hero. I agree that Bush quoting some Iraqi blogger to prove things are ok in Iraq is specious and proves nothing. Things are obviously not ok in Iraq and Bush deserves more blame for that than any other person.

I’m actually completely nonpartisan. So much so, in fact, that I hate both parties. I loathe the two-party system. I detest how each party is controlled by its radicals. What particularly bothers me is that a minor change in the balance of votes in Congress gives one party or another tremendous power. The fact the the majority party, even if that majority is one vote, controls the committees, controls the agenda, etc. I could write an essay on that, but I’m digressing. If I were to categorize my politics I would say I lean libertarian with a bit of hawkishness and social justice thrown in. In other words, I’m big into independent candidates.

Iraqi bloggers do have a voice. I simply pointed out that Bush’s choice of blogger and words to quote were used to justify his preconceptions just as your choice was. Your quote and Bushes quote could not be more far apart. You may call it “candor” but it nicely fits your politics. I bet GWB would call his choice “candor” too. If pointing that out makes you believe that Bush is my hero then that says a lot more you than it does about me.

The truth is, when I’m not here, I spend time on righty sites doing the same thing to them that I do to you here. I’m an equal-opportunity criticizer.

I am glad when complicated things stack up so neatly for you. What that I could think in such simplistic terms. I do stand by my earlier comment re bias vs. candor.

Would you care to take a stab at my earlier question:

Where do you think we would be today if your hero had shown even a modicum of candor? Or are you too biased to address that?

When the President of the United States of America is reduced to quoting propaganda nonsense fabricated by his own neocon supporters, that’s pathetic.

When he does so specifically in order to justify failed policies which continue to see dozens, if not hundreds, dead every day in Iraq, that’s tragic.

Impeach! Now!here.

I see you completely missed my comment on confirmation bias. You assume it was aimed at you. What it was meant to convey is the absurdity of GWB trotting out a couple of comments by one Iraqi blogger to support his views and in reaction, and, apparently, disgust, you did the exact same thing he did – trott out a single comment by an Iraqi blogger that supports your views. The irony you missed is that you and GWB did exactly the same thing. That’s what I meant by my confirmation bias comment – out of the galaxy of prose written by Iraqi bloggers you each pulled and quoted one that most supports your own bias.

When did this become a hearts and minds campaign? No country rolling into another country with tanks is going to be seen as a liberating hero when the very two cultures are diametrically opposed to one another.

The error of The republicans and George Bush’s ways has and continues to be the fact that they are attempting to convince the world that we are there to “Win hearts and Minds, create a democratic government, and sing kumbyeah around the campfire.”

The truth is we went to Iraq to kill terrorists. We went to Iraq to stop terror funding and thus cut off the head of the snake and let it die out from suffocation and the lack of funds and resources. The exit strategy was to create a democratic form of government and to exit gracefully with a form of government that might flourish in the heart of the middle east.

The error of George Bush’s ways was that he got misled himself and the republican supporters are throwing out 50 different reasons for being in Iraq.

There is only ONE reason for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. To destroy terrorists and to destroy their ability to fund terrorist activity. The blogs you use to support your antiwar stance Mr. Mullen is quite simply the evidence I use to say “We are not there to win hearts and minds and we will never win hearts and minds so why are we trying to win hearts and minds.”

We are there to kill terrorists. We are killing terrorist. The next step of the campaign most certainly is to turn the screws on Iran and to force them into bankruptacy so that they cannot fund terror any longer. Once this is accomplished the boys can come home.

George Bush would be well served to admit to his mistakes. To say hey things are really bad for the Iraqi people and the reason they are really bad is because terror funding has not dried up from Iran and this is our next goal. We are not going to attack Iran but with Sanctions and economic means such as the AFL/CEO keeping the IRAN oil industry afloat by investing billions into corporations that are funding the Iranian oil industry we can effectively bankrupt a warmongering/terror sponsoring nation and end the funding for Middle Eastern terrorists.

We will never end terroristic activity. But end their funding and we will manage it. End their funding and the Iraqis can form a government of their choosing without the fear of millions of dollars a day funnelling to terrorists cells in Iraq.

That is the strategy and if the Democrats allow it to work then it can work and work quite well. I offer Palestine as an example. Look how pacified they have become with NO MONEY. If George Bush and friends embrace it once again with outright honesty and integrity then the war on terror will be successful.

We will never WIN the war but we can manage terror just as we have managed crime in the US. There will always be terrorists blowing things up from time to time but there will be peace in the middle east and not another country has to be invaded and given time the boys and girls can come home.

Bush with the help of the democrats and the antiwar must redirect the effort. Let the Iraqis fight the Iraqis and the insurgents. Our troops need to focus on the funding and it will succeed. Any other plan will fail.

There are no hearts and minds to win in Iraq. They are a soverign people that need to win their own hearts and minds and need to stand up and be proud and force the terror from their grips much as the USA forced the roaring 20′s criminals to eventually flee for their lives because we basically said……Enough is enough.

When cops kill 70 people in one day for belonging to a different sect, you know you’ve got a problem.

He be a she.

. . . is that it would have been a stronger statement if you not only mentioned that there’s a whole spectrum there, but had given us a sampling of it. As it is, it feels more like cherry picking the rotten cherries instead of the one or two ripe sweet ones as Bush did.

I have neither the time nor inclination to look through dozens of posts from Iraqi bloggers. My point, based on reading these people for the last couple of years, is that there is not really any spectrum to speak of. The vast majority of bloggers do not have anything nice to say about Bush or the occupation, most just do not say it as stridently as Riverbend does.

I don’t think it is difficult to see why that is so considering that most of them live in Baghdad and other major cities that have been under siege for much of the time since the president declared “Mission Accomplished.”

You may not have intended to give a lopsided view, or you may have intended that in order to show the opposite side of the spectrum from what Bush cited. My view (and I think that of others here) is that it would have been a stronger statement if you not only mentioned that there’s a whole spectrum there, but had given us a sampling of it. As it is, it feels more like cherry picking the rotten cherries instead of the one or two ripe sweet ones as Bush did.

Go to my blog and type Iraqi blogger into the search screen. You will get dozens of citations that fall between the Fadils and Riverbend.

However, you will quickly notice a pattern: These are earnest, hardworking people who may not have Riverbend’s invectice. They loathed Saddam, but because of a botched U.S. invasion and occupation rather incredibly find themselves living under far worse conditions.

Howie:

You are correct that the context of Riverbend’s outrage was the alleged rape of a fellow Sunni by Shiite security forces. I won’t say that that context is incidental, and I am grateful that you noted it. But it is by no means the first time that Riverbend expressed her strong feelings about . . . a botched U.S. invasion and occupation . . .