Novak: Bush admin to pull troops if re-elected

[giant]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.
Is the neocon dream over?
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest...

In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.

''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.
of course, as he points out "Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal."

[THT]

Originally posted by giant
Is the neocon dream over?

Not when Cheney is still VP, Rice will be promoted to Secretary of State (5th in line of succession), Wolfowitz is promoted to SecDef, Hadley promoted to NSC. And you have to believe Feith, Bolton and Negroponte will be in the mix somehow. As far as I'm concerned, all of those people should be summarily fired.

[curiousuburb]

Or they could trade it all for what's behind door number 2...

An all expenses paid week in Abu Ghraib with all those happy flower-strewing Iraqis who we were promised would welcome "occupiers" as 'liberators'.

Let's see them walk the walk after they talked the talk...

Oh wait.

[MarcUK]

As much as I detest every nuance of this war, If we walk out now, then thats the end of civilization as we know it.

Every God damn motherfucker Arab is going to Invade Iraq to get the oil. Civil War, Middle East implosion. Oil price skyrockets. World recession - probably depression. Russia's gone Communist. China's going to invade the ME and then the US. The US invades Europe for 'causing the mess'

BRINGING BACK SADDAM WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA RIGHT ABOUT NOW

and so would sending Bush and his evil New World Order Neo Con administration to Abu Graib for the rest of their pitiful lives.

[BRussell]

I don't believe for a second. I could see declaring victory and pulling out now, before the election. But his presidency is going to be judged in the long-term by how Iraq fares. It doesn't make any sense to wait until after the election, and then think about the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't believe for a second. I could see declaring victory and pulling out now, before the election. But his presidency is going to be judged in the long-term by how Iraq fares. It doesn't make any sense to wait until after the election, and then think about the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

Who would believe it if they declared victory now. NOT EVEN Scott is that dumb. um ;)

Withdrawl after the election would make sense IF Bush really believed he had 3 1/2 years to convince the US dumbasses, that the war never really happened.

[BuonRotto]

...thats the end of civilization as we know it.

Russia's gone Communist. China's going to invade the ME and then the US. The US invades Europe for 'causing the mess'

BRINGING BACK SADDAM WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA RIGHT ABOUT NOW

...convince the US dumbasses, that the war never really happened

MarcUK = funny :D

[Wrong Robot]

Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria....

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria....

</Ghostbusters> :D

[MarcUK]

Perhaps I got a bit carried away there...

Need to check I havn't disappeared up my own asshole from time to time.;)

[THT]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't believe for a second. I could see declaring victory and pulling out now, before the election. But his presidency is going to be judged in the long-term by how Iraq fares. It doesn't make any sense to wait until after the election, and then think about the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

Skepticism is definitely warranted, and this could simply be the administration being everything to its base, a trial balloon for the moderates. However, this is GWB we are talking about here, one of the most deft limbo players in the world.

[dmz]

What is missing here is what the administration offically thought would happen---before and after. That would be interesting. I can't believe the bubbleheaded "democracy for the sake of democracy" that is probably meant for mass consumption.


Also, the hysteria over the situation in Iraq is hard to judge fairly in any event due to the coverage it is receiving. I think if we got this sort of "coverage" from, say, Sudan or Chechnya, we would think the sky was falling there, too.


And then there's Pat (http://www.amconmag.com/05_05_03/cover.html)....

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
Also, the hysteria over the situation in Iraq is hard to judge fairly in any event due to the coverage it is receiving. I think if we got this sort of "coverage" from, say, Sudan or Chechnya, we would think the sky was falling there, too.
Are you saying the situation in Iraq is not as bas as the media is making it out to be? 'Hysteria"?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by dmz
Also, the hysteria over the situation in Iraq is hard to judge fairly in any event due to the coverage it is receiving. I think if we got this sort of "coverage" from, say, Sudan or Chechnya, we would think the sky was falling there, too.
[/B] Yeah, 'cause we have hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars there also, right?

[faust9]

Originally posted by dmz
What is missing here is what the administration offically thought would happen---before and after. That would be interesting. I can't believe the bubbleheaded "democracy for the sake of democracy" that is probably meant for mass consumption.


Also, the hysteria over the situation in Iraq is hard to judge fairly in any event due to the coverage it is receiving. I think if we got this sort of "coverage" from, say, Sudan or Chechnya, we would think the sky was falling there, too.


And then there's Pat (http://www.amconmag.com/05_05_03/cover.html)....

This makes noe sense... Coverage Iraq is receiving? The only good press on Iraq is from the White House. Republican Senators are beginning to question the situation PUBLICALLY. Iraq is not going as well as Bush would have us believe. We control a strip of land in Baghdad and the unpopulated lands. That's it. Rebels are in full control of many areas and are becoming more bold in Baghdad.

We are not in control. We did not send enough troops to begin with. We are losing as Russia and France did when they entered into this kind of folly.

[dmz]

Originally posted by faust9
We control a strip of land in Baghdad and the unpopulated lands. That's it.


That sounds like hysteria. I doubt Al-Jazeera is even reporting that. Yes, there are hotspots, but if that was true, the pipelines would be constantly down. The probelm with the "coverage" is we hear every time the pipeline gets stopped, but never when it is running. Same with the "looting" of the Baghdad museum, etc., etc., etc.

Why did CNN bother firing Peter Arnett anyway?


I will have a person I know on the ground in a month or so---I'll keep you all posted.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
The probelm with the "coverage" is we hear every time the pipeline gets stopped, but never when it is running. Same with the "looting" of the Baghdad museum, etc., etc., etc. lol It's obvious the pipelines are running unless they're sabotaged....hence the news channels...uhh...reporting it. So what did you expect? The media telling us every day that a pipeline is fine? We'd still hear about the times it's sabotaged, which is often, right? That basically describes what's newsworthy: things aren't going well in Iraq.

So what about the Baghdad museumS? You wanna hear, "in other news, the unprotected museums weren't looted today"??

Are you gonna answer the question or not? Are you saying the situation in Iraq is not as bad as the media is making it out to be? 'Hysteria"?
Not like we get that much coverage originating from Iraq to begin with. Not like we get to see a lot of death and bloody scenes which portray the reality of war.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
It's obvious the pipelines are running unless they're sabotaged....hence the news channels...uhh...reporting it.


you can't have it both ways, either:


Originally posted by faust9
We control a strip of land in Baghdad and the unpopulated lands. That's it.



...or something else is going on.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
you can't have it both ways, either:
[/B] Tell that to the news channels. Oh wait, they obviously only report the news. :D

Love how you wouldn't answer the question.

[dmz]

I think you missed the point, either the country is bedlam or it's not.


If the "insurgents" are in as much control of the country as faust9 says, why are the piplines still, presumably running? Where is the continuity between a 'fact' such as that and that the northern part of the country (Kurds) are just fine with occupation and the murder and mayhem portrayed by the Kerry campaign, er, I mean, CNN.


Shia?

Sunni?

Who's on first?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz I think you missed the point, either the country is bedlam or it's not.
Depends on your definition of "bedlam". I guess 87 attacks per day is acceptable to you. :no: Across Iraq, August saw the highest number of attacks on U.S.-led forces since major combat ended in May 2003. The U.S. military counted 2,700 attacks last month, averaging 87 per day.

July saw 1,600 or 52 per day. In April, the deadliest month of the war, there were 1,800 attacks on American and allied troops, or 60 per day. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/9594525.htm Yep. Iraq is nice and stable and Iraqis are greeting us like liberators.
If the "insurgents" are in as much control of the country as faust9 says, why are the piplines still, presumably running? Where is the continuity between a 'fact' such as that and that the northern part of the country (Kurds) are just fine with occupation and the murder and mayhem portrayed by the Kerry campaign, er, I mean, CNN. Did you bother to do any research on what Faust said, or are you just .... hoping he's wrong? Here's some info. on thoe pipelines that are "presumably" running.Oil exports from southern Iraq have been brought over the weekend to a standstill, a senior oil company official told reporters today, following a string of pipeline attacks launched by Iraqi resistance forces during and after the USA-led siege of Najaf.

Oil flows out of the country’s southern pipelines - which account for nine-tenths of Iraq’s exports - were brought to a complete halt late Sunday and were not likely to resume for at least a week, an official from South Oil Co. said on condition of anonymity.

“Oil exports from the port of Basra have completely stopped since last night,” the official said today.

Iraqi resistance forces have launched repeated attacks on oil infrastructure targets over recent weeks, in a strategy designed to undermine the USA-appointed interim government led by Ayad Allawi, to bolster morale amongst the country’s still disparate resistance groupings, and to bring to the attention of the outside world the widespread opposition of Iraqis to the USA’s continued occupation of their country.

The increasingly frequent attacks on oil infrastructurep have certainly been a major factor in keeping oil prices high throughout the year. And a halt in southern oil exports costs the USA-appointed interim government about $60 million (U.S.) a day in lost income at current global crude prices, said Walid Khadduri, an oil expert who is chief editor of the Cyprus-based Middle East Economic Survey.

Even before Sunday’s attack, Iraq’s exports from the south were about a third of the normal average of 1.8 million barrels a day, due to a string of resistance attacks early last week. These pipelines were still ablaze today, the official said.


This is the second time this summer that resistance attacks have brought southern Iraq’s oil exports to a halt. There are many articles like this one. Maybe you should take the time to actually do some research next time.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Did you bother to do any research on what Faust said, or are you just .... hoping he's wrong? Here's some info. on thoe pipelines that are "presumably" running. There are many articles like this one. Maybe you should take the time to actually do some research next time.


You are still missing the point---but making mine for me.

Your second report:

Attacks halt Iraq's southern oil exports 8/30/2004 9:27 AM By: Todd Pittman, Associated Press

is over three weeks old.


Yes, they are under attack, but how are we to judge what is going on in the country when we are ONLY told what is going wrong? Again, Iraq is not a monolith.

[giant]

Sorry, dmz, but the level of violence there is extreme by any standard. If that level of violence was occurring in a similar sized region in the US (Iraq = ~x2 idaho), it would seem rather ridiculous for journalists to go out of their way to get a photo of a little girl smelling a flower just so some people can keep living in la-la land.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
Sorry, dmz, but the level of violence there is extreme by any standard. If that level of violence was occurring in a similar sized region in the US (Iraq = ~x2 idaho), it would seem rather ridiculous for journalists to go out of their way to get a photo of a little girl smelling a flower just so some people can keep living in la-la land.


Alot of violence, definitely. Probably akin to the West Bank on a bad day---nice 'factbook' reference BTW.

I can't go with the 'sky is falling', 'lets just give up, and let the nation dissolve into anarchy' thing.

If the 'insurgents' continue to turn their killing on civilians, or prevent free elections, I think it's up to the ME community to either officially fight for a theocracy or pinch off the funding for the 'insurgents'. Make or break time for an emerging region---where is the analysis on this?

[Northgate]

Can anyone say TRIAL BALOON?

[giant]

This story was indeed put out there for a reason. It's not just Novak's investigative journalism.

[dmz]

I'd have to say that Bush's appearing before the UN speaks volumes. They're also into the $25B emergency funds for Iraq.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
You are still missing the point---but making mine for me. The only point you're "making" here is that you're ignorant (or in severe denial)about the matter at hand. But I don't mind taking a few minutes of my time to educate you.Your second report:
is over three weeks old. Wow, amazing. Guess it's outdated because the conditions in Iraq have improved sooooo dramatically since then. I'm sure google won't bite you, but since you seem to be having problems with Google or your favorite search engine....here.BAGHDAD - The sharp rise in attacks on Iraq's oil pipelines in recent weeks has substantially impaired the country's production, dealing a blow to the economy and threatening the struggling reconstruction effort, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

Insurgents are bombing pipelines and other parts of Iraq's oil infrastructure almost daily, another sign that security is deteriorating beyond the control of U.S. military and Iraqi security forces.

U.S. and Iraqi officials said the strikes had reduced average daily oil production by nearly 100,000 barrels, resulting in losses of as much as $1 billion this year. Dated Sept. 18th 2004 (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0918iraq-oil18.html)
Yes, they are under attack, but how are we to judge what is going on in the country when we are ONLY told what is going wrong? Again, Iraq is not a monolith. "How are we to judge"? lol Well, if things are going wrong, I expect to hear about things going wrong. Your own "logic" confuses you. Unless of course you think that somehow hearing rosey things will make the 2700 attacks we had in August according to the US MIlitary go away. :D

[curiousuburb]

In the trial balloon category perhaps, last week I heard (on PBS IIRC) that November 3rd has been mentioned as the date for a new call-up of reservists and a new "make a tough-guy example" offensive in Fallujah.

I think I heard it from a guest on Now with Bill Moyers. (http://www.pbs.org/now/) <scans archive>

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
I'd have to say that Bush's appearing before the UN speaks volumes. They're also into the $25B emergency funds for Iraq. We agree there. Speaks volumes of the failures of this administration. I guess our "Coalition of The Willing™" wasn't all that it was cracked up to be if our President has to go to the UN with his tail under his legs to ask for help not even two years after members of his administration enjoyed a UN bashing and denigration fest. Quite painful to watch actually.

*sigh* Ahhh...the bravado days of Mission Accomplished, Bring it on, Old Europe, Shock and Awe, With us or against us, seem so long gone. :D

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
The only point you're "making" here is that you're ignorant (or in severe denial)about the matter at hand. But I don't mind taking a few minutes of my time to educate you. Wow, amazing. Guess it's outdated because the conditions in Iraq have improved sooooo dramatically since then. I'm sure google won't bite you, but since you seem to be having problems with Google or your favorite search engine....here. Dated Sept. 18th 2004 (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0918iraq-oil18.html)
"How are we to judge"? lol Well, if things are going wrong, I expect to hear about things going wrong. Your own "logic" confuses you. Unless of course you think that somehow hearing rosey things will make the 2700 attacks we had in August according to the US MIlitary go away. :D


Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think you have confused 'snide' with 'relevant'. Never fear:
_


Main Entry: snide Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: snd
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): -er/-est
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : COUNTERFEIT, SPURIOUS <some contractors use snide oils knowingly, and ... some have doped linseed oil palmed off on them -- Frederick Maire> b : practicing deception : DISHONEST, CROOKED <taken in by a snide merchant> c : designed to deceive : TRICKY <this is a snide bill, full of tricks and man-traps -- H.L.Ickes>
2 : MEAN, BASE, LOW, CHEAP <tied to a snide job in a snide town -- Fannie Hurst> <a snide trick>
3 : slyly disparaging : subtly derisive : INSINUATING <she makes many a sharp comparison, but never a mean or snide one -- Bernardine Kielty> <draws a line between legitimate reporting and snide muckraking -- Don Weldon>
4 : showing malice <nothing very deep or snide, merely good, clean spoofing -- New York World-Telegram>
Citation format for this entry:

"snide." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (21 Sep. 2004).



*************************


Main Entry: rel·e·vant Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: -nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of Latin relevare to raise up, lift up -- more at RELIEVE
1 : bearing upon or properly applying to the matter at hand : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matters at issue or under discussion : PERTINENT <began work on the problem by reading all the relevant literature> <relevant testimony>
2 : CORRESPONDENT, PROPORTIONAL, COMMENSURATE <the human concepts of one inch in length, and one second in time ... are purely relevant to human life -- A.N.Whitehead>
3 Scots law : VALID, SUFFICIENT <relevant defense>
synonyms RELEVANT, GERMANE, MATERIAL, PERTINENT, APPOSITE, APPLICABLE, APROPOS can signify, in common, having a relation to or a bearing upon a matter in hand or upon present circumstances. A thing is RELEVANT when it has a connection, especially a logical connection, with a matter under consideration <nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill be received -- U.S. Code> <what the cartman is saying is relevant to his case -- John Hersey> <had thoroughly familiarized himself with all the knowledge relevant to his new duties -- Benjamin Farrington> GERMANE is interchangeable with RELEVANT but usually adds to it the idea of unquestionable closeness and fitness or appropriateness of relationship as in spirit, tone, or quality <almost every fact -- religious, social, political, economic -- was, somehow or other, germane to the war or the peace -- Katharine F. Gerould> <the fierce aversions and the passionate cravings which are germane to the hermit life -- H.O.Taylor> A thing is MATERIAL when it has so close a relationship with a case in hand that it cannot be dispensed with without serious alteration of the case <the motion is supported by an affidavit showing that the evidence is material -- B.F.Tucker> <information material to the solution of a problem> PERTINENT is interchangeable with RELEVANT, although it often stresses a more decisive or significant relationship, characterizing what not only bears upon but also contributes materially to the understanding or solution as of a problem or matter in hand <had something pertinent to say about every horse that was brought out -- Gerald Beaumont> <relatively few studies pertinent to the transplantation of lung tissue have been made -- C.A.Hardin & C.F.Kittle> <deal in a specific kind of emotional conflict for pertinent dramatic ends -- Irving Kolodin> APPOSITE usually applies to what is relevant and germane to the point of felicitousness <apposite quotations from the classics came easily to his pen to grace the pellucid flow of his English -- V.L.Parrington> <his sermons ... are replete with apposite arguments and quotations from the Latin classics in support of the teachings of Christianity -- G.C.Sellery> A thing is APPLICABLE when it can be brought to bear upon or be used fittingly in reference to a matter in hand <beauty in this broad sense is applicable to widely differing artistic achievements -- C.W.H.Johnson> <this assumption is not applicable to many economic problems -- Robert Dorfman> A thing is APROPOS when it is opportunely appropriate <once asked him, apropos of his liberal politics ... what ideal of society he would approve -- George Santayana> <she stays glued to her easel, creating futuristic pictures apropos of which the author observes, "She had a moderate talent for painting" -- S.J.Perelman>
Citation format for this entry:

"relevant." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (21 Sep. 2004).

_ _

[Gilsch]

Going out on a limb.... well that's an improvement coming from you. I knew you had nothing to offer but the notion that hearing about cute purple flying pigs over Iraq would drown the reality of life and all would be well.

I'm not going out on a limb when I say you live in a fantasy world.

Good job son :lol:

[faust9]

I pose a response--dmz dodges it almost entirely.

Gilsch poses a question--again, dmz does not answer

Gilsch presents proof--dmz responds with dictionary definitions.

Typical.

No matter what you think is good and lovely about Iraq, the fact still remains that 4--count them one, two three, and four--Republican Senators hit the Sunday talk-shows decrying the Bush admin as failing in Iraq. We're not talking about nobody's here either--these are some party big whigs telling us Bush lied to us and bush is not handling the Iraq conflict as well as he thinks and claims he is.

You dismissed my initial post off hand for reasons unknown--my theory is it would upset your world view too much to look into Iraq-- but you're yet to present info about how good Iraq is going. Maybe the British controlled areas are doing better, who knows you might want to look into British press release over the last week to see if a war has broken out in their area. Maybe we are in control of most of Iraq. You might want to look into some crazy reports over the last two weeks from current and former military leaders who tend to believe otherwise.

I'd link you to these but I feel one of two things will happen if I don't:
1) I save myself the time and trouble of finding these relatively easy to locate reports because you wont read them anyway
2) You might actually get your finger off the "I Believe King Bush" button long enough to research this thus encountering thousands of articles from high placed military officials to reports from men and women on the street saying effectively what Gilsch and I have put forth.

Enjoy you dictionary quotes and stay blind to the realities of this war. Don't look into how many troops have been evacuated from Iraq to date due to death or injury. Don't look into the ever shrinking list of the willing. Stay blind my brother...

[edit]I have a bad cold and had many, many typo's to fix because it it.

[tonton]

OMFG! Cut and run!!! Cut and Run!!!

:rolleyes:

[giant]

Not to draw out this point too much more, but Juan Cole has a post directly on track with what I was saying above:

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#10958236663839468 8