[subego]

Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow

I mean, it is—it is amazing to think that even without a new government being formed, even without us not knowing exactly where things are going, even with, as you‘re describing, the prospect of another civil war, the probably most accurate generalization we can make about what the effect on Iraq has been of this war is that we turned it from a Sunni dictatorship into the world‘s only Shiite/Arab state.

I'm finding it difficult to restrain my language here, both in wanting to describe the actual effect the war has had on Iraq, and with my disgust at the ease with which she participates in this kind of whitewash.

Transcript here.

[subego]

This thread would be improved subego, if you...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

This thread would be improved subego, if you...

...would not have made it about Rachel Maddow.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This thread would be improved subego, if you...

... would not restrain your language. Without reading the link, it would be difficult to know exactly what you take issue with.

What is it of Maddow's point that you have a problem with specifically? How do you feel about our exit from Iraq (or non-exit? how do you view it?) with those items still on the table; no stable government entity, the prospect of civil war, etc...?

[BadKosh]

So are Iraqi politicians to blame, or is it general unfamiliarity with democratic concepts, or religious bickering, or corruption and insurgents from the outside?

[sek929]

I think it's all 4, honestly.

A terrible analogy is like a new boss takes over the office and starts re-assigning people that have been there for 30 years.

I think the idea that Democracy is for everyone is to blame here. Everything else was simply trying to execute a failed ideology.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... would not restrain your language. Without reading the link, it would be difficult to know exactly what you take issue with.

****, ****, **** ****! *******, **** **** ****! Aughhhh! Aughhhh! AUGHHHH!

I don't know if that helped you, but I feel better.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is it of Maddow's point that you have a problem with specifically? How do you feel about our exit from Iraq (or non-exit? how do you view it?) with those items still on the table; no stable government entity, the prospect of civil war, etc...?

Merely in terms of what's the right thing to do for the Iraqis, we should stay. If you add in financing and whether the political will to continue exists, things get more complicated. It's definitely possible that even though being there would be the right thing, we just can't do the right thing at the moment, and should be ashamed.

As for Maddow, what bothers me is after years of shrieking about WMDs and quagmires, all of the sudden what's happened is that we toppled a dictatorship and helped create a Shiite state.

Now, I'm familiar with how people will react completely differently to the same thing depending upon the (D) or (R) which follows it. As irritating as this is, I generally think it's "honest". People think their, umm... I'm out of expletives so I'll say "poop doesn't stink". This is part of human nature. What are you gonna do?

This Maddow thing here? This isn't honest.

[OAW]

Sorry ... but I fail to see where Maddow said anything inaccurate in that transcript regarding the situation in Iraq.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sorry ... but I fail to see where Maddow said anything inaccurate in that transcript regarding the situation in Iraq.

OAW

If you asked me what I thought of George Bush, I could say "he seems like he'd be a fun guy to have a drink with." This would be accurate, but wouldn't give you an idea of my actual opinion.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you asked me what I thought of George Bush, I could say "he seems like he'd be a fun guy to have a drink with." This would be accurate, but wouldn't give you an idea of my actual opinion.

I'm going to have to echo my man eBuddy who said ....

Originally Posted by eBuddy

Without reading the link, it would be difficult to know exactly what you take issue with.

What is it of Maddow's point that you have a problem with specifically? How do you feel about our exit from Iraq (or non-exit? how do you view it?) with those items still on the table; no stable government entity, the prospect of civil war, etc...?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm seriously telling you that I have no idea what it is about that piece that you take issue with. From what I gather based upon reading the transcript Maddow essentially said ...

- The Bush Administration tried to link Iraq to al-Qaeda ... which was not true.

- The Bush Administration said Iraq was in possession of WMD ... which was not true.

- The Bush Administration then tried to say that the Iraq was about spreading "peace and democracy" in the Middle East and to deny the terrorists a base of operations in Iraq ... which certainly hasn't happened. And conveniently overlooks the fact that al-Qaeda didn't even exist in Iraq until after the US invaded.

- The Bush Administration then said that Saddam was violating the UN Oil for Food Program .... which was likely true, but was completely BS as a justification for a full-scale invasion.

- And finally when none of that stuck, the Bush Administration then said that the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator .... which was also not the real reason, even though Saddam was undoubtedly a tyrant (bought and paid for by the US government and our main guy in the Middle East when he was invading Iran on our behalf).

- The GOP is criticizing President Obama for not directly thanking Bush for the "surge" strategy that was designed to "set up a political resolution in Iraq, among Iraqi politicians, to provide the breathing space necessary for a functioning government to be formed in Iraq." ... even though it's been nearly 6 months since Iraq held its last elections and there is STILL no government in place in Iraq. And as quiet as its kept the dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq was more the result of the Sunni insurgents turning against al-Qaeda (which overplayed its hand and slaughtered innocent Muslims indiscriminately in an attempt to stoke a civil War against the Shia) than it was the increase in US troops.


Which eventually leads us to where you started ....

Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow

I mean, it is—it is amazing to think that even without a new government being formed, even without us not knowing exactly where things are going, even with, as you‘re describing, the prospect of another civil war, the probably most accurate generalization we can make about what the effect on Iraq has been of this war is that we turned it from a Sunni dictatorship into the world‘s only Shiite/Arab state

.

Which is without question a true statement. The only thing I would take issue with is that this piece was completely from the US perspective. No mention was made whatsoever of the Iraqi civilian deaths (approx. 100 thousand) since the war began. No mention was made whatsoever of the "brain drain" in Iraqi society as the more educated and economically better off Iraqis have fled their homeland.

I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at. But until you decide to stop being so cryptic, I suppose we'll never know what your point is.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Which is without question a true statement. The only thing I would take issue with is that this piece was completely from the US perspective. No mention was made whatsoever of the Iraqi civilian deaths (approx. 100 thousand) since the war began. No mention was made whatsoever of the "brain drain" in Iraqi society as the more educated and economically better off Iraqis have fled their homeland.

So, if I asked you what the most accurate generalization about the effect of the war on Iraq, you'd jump over all those things you mentioned, as well as the crippled infrastructure and how we're leaving them incapable of defending themselves versus Iran, and answer with "we created the first Shiite state"?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, if I asked you what the most accurate generalization about the effect of the war on Iraq, you'd jump over all those things you mentioned, as well as the crippled infrastructure and how we're leaving them incapable of defending themselves versus Iran, and answer with "we created the first Shiite state"?

Well she mentioned "all those things" so I don't see how that's jumping over them. The infrastructure is a mess without question ... but IIRC it was a mess prior to the invasion as a result of all the sanctions. And after billions spent and thousands of lives lost it's not much better. I agree. As for Iran, I don't see Iraq needing to defend itself against Iran. Modern day Iran has never invaded another country. You'd have to go back centuries to find Persian aggression against a neighboring country. Moreover, both Iran and Iraq are populated with primarily Shiite Muslims (as is a large section of the population in Lebanon) .... so they have longstanding religious ties in the Middle East which is predominantly Sunni. So the issue isn't Iran invading or attacking Iraq. The issue (from the US perspective) is Iran influencing Iraq and becoming a "behind the scenes" power broker more than it already is.

And I think that is what Maddow was trying to say. That's what a lot of people have been saying. The primary beneficiary of the Iraq was has been Iran. The US took out the biggest threat to Iran and created a power vacuum in the neighboring state of Iraq. Iran is country that is religiously Shiite but culturally Persian. Iraq is country that is religiously Shiite but culturally Arab. So yes from a geo-political perspective, the Iraq war has created the first Shiite/Arab state at the cost of thousands of American lives ... billions of American dollars .... and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives ... which will likely turn out to be a natural ally to Iran ... our latest enemy du jour. Go figure.

Was it worth it? Politically ... no. Economically ... hell no. Militarily ... perhaps. If you consider establishing a military bases directly outside of Iran's borders to be a good thing.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And I think that is what Maddow was trying to say. That's what a lot of people have been saying. The primary beneficiary of the Iraq was has been Iran. The US took out the biggest threat to Iran and created a power vacuum in the neighboring state of Iraq. Iran is country that is religiously Shiite but culturally Persian. Iraq is country that is religiously Shiite but culturally Arab. So yes from a geo-political perspective, the Iraq war has created the first Shiite/Arab state at the cost of thousands of American lives ... billions of American dollars .... and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives ... which will likely turn out to be a natural ally to Iran ... our latest enemy du jour. Go figure.

How are you parsing her quote to get that meaning from it?

She said even with bad thing one two and three, we created a Shiite state. If she's saying we created a natural ally of Iran, then she's saying that's a good thing, otherwise her qualifier is meaningless.

If her point is what you think it is, she managed to say the exact opposite.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

How are you parsing her quote to get that meaning from it?

She said even with bad thing one two and three, we created a Shiite state. If she's saying we created a natural ally of Iran, then she's saying that's a good thing, otherwise her qualifier is meaningless.

If her point is what you think it is, she managed to say the exact opposite.

I think you need to apply a little context and history to the transcript. Rachel Maddow is not and has never been a fan of the Iraq War. If you think that she was praising the war effort or the outcome then I do believe you are misinterpreting what she said.

In a nutshell she's saying that we went into Iraq under false pretenses, got 4000 American soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, cost ourselves billions of dollars ... and the only thing we managed to accomplish when it was all said and done was turn a Sunni dictatorship into an Shiite/Arab state ... and a very fragile one at that. I certainly don't see her saying that despite all of that things turned out OK in the end. That would simply be out of character for Ms. Maddow.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think you need to apply a little context and history to the transcript. Rachel Maddow is not and has never been a fan of the Iraq War. If you think that she was praising the war effort or the outcome then I do believe you are misinterpreting what she said.

In a nutshell she's saying that we went into Iraq under false pretenses, got 4000 American soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, cost ourselves billions of dollars ... and the only thing we managed to accomplish when it was all said and done was turn a Sunni dictatorship into an Shiite/Arab state ... and a very fragile one at that. I certainly don't see her saying that despite all of that things turned out OK in the end. That would simply be out of character for Ms. Maddow.

OAW

I think you got it right.

[subego]

She says exactly what she thinks was accomplished right before the interview.

Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow

The other accomplishment in Iraq is that we have finally found a way to leave, to get combat troops out, now.

Those two accomplishments belong to this president, who‘s overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq...

She is, in no uncertain terms, praising this outcome.



Now read the interview.

Engel says we've failed, and Obama didn't address that.

Maddow interrupts, and repeats part of Obama's speech.

Engel says those words are empty.

Maddow brings up another part of the speech.

Engel says that's bullshit too.

Maddow asks about Maliki.

Engel says we shouldn't be supporting him.

The discussion switches to Iran, and Engel drops the bomb. He says even the resistance is scared what Iran will do once we leave.

This is when we get to the quote I selected. The interview has come completely off the rails by now. According to everything which Engel has said, this "accomplishment" which Maddow touted at the end of the last segment will only serve to make matters worse.

Maddow says her quote, where she compares everything Engel has said up to this point with the toppling of a dictatorship and the creation of a Shiite/Arab state. She is clearly comparing that favorably to what had been said so far, or did she suddenly lose sight of her thesis and her command of English?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Rachel Maddow

The other accomplishment in Iraq is that we have finally found a way to leave, to get combat troops out, now.

Those two accomplishments belong to this president, who‘s overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq...

All I will say is that dismantling a brutal Sunni dictatorship in a majority Shiite country and establishing Shiite/Arab state is an "accomplishment". It is. Doesn't mean you support the Iraq War. Doesn't mean you think we should have invaded in the first place. Doesn't mean it didn't cost US lives and treasure under false pretenses. Doesn't mean it didn't cost countless Iraqi lives. Doesn't mean that you think it was worth it. It just means that it actually occurred. And for someone who has always opposed the war it is entirely consistent for her to also view President Obama following through on his campaign promise to end the combat mission in Iraq as an "accomplishment" as well.

Again. Anyone who is familiar with Rachel Maddow knows that she does not view the Iraq War "favorably". Not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, you have the right to your own interpretation.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm finding it difficult to restrain my language here, both in wanting to describe the actual effect the war has had on Iraq, and with my disgust at the ease with which she participates in this kind of whitewash.

She seemed pretty accurate to me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

All I will say is that dismantling a brutal Sunni dictatorship in a majority Shiite country and establishing Shiite/Arab state is an "accomplishment". It is. Doesn't mean you support the Iraq War. Doesn't mean you think we should have invaded in the first place. Doesn't mean it didn't cost US lives and treasure under false pretenses. Doesn't mean it didn't cost countless Iraqi lives. Doesn't mean that you think it was worth it. It just means that it actually occurred. And for someone who has always opposed the war it is entirely consistent for her to also view President Obama following through on his campaign promise to end the combat mission in Iraq as an "accomplishment" as well.

Again. Anyone who is familiar with Rachel Maddow knows that she does not view the Iraq War "favorably". Not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, you have the right to your own interpretation.

OAW

Which is precisely why it's disingenuous for her to trot out accomplishments we've had there as justification for her thesis. She wouldn't do that in any other context.

I mean, the considerable effort you expended (at least in terms of word count) trying to convince me she was saying the exact opposite doesn't give you pause for thought?

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She seemed pretty accurate to me.

As I said earlier, the issue isn't one of accuracy.

As I also said earlier, George Bush seems like he'd be fun to hang out with at a bar. This statement would be (from my perspective at least) accurate.

OTOH, I find most of his politics to be loathsome, and made no effort to hide that.

If someone asked me what I thought of George Bush and I answered with the bar statement, that would be accurate, but also dishonest.