Paul Krugman: Time to Take a Stand

[EV_Ares]

Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here’s what I’m afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with Shiite militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess what? When a Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that district falls because there’s nobody left to kill, that counts as progress by the Pentagon’s metric.

(Entire article @ following link)

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-time-to-take-stand.html

[senseandsensibility]

1. kick

Please read this.

[leftchick]

2. "because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop the war"

Say it Paul!

<snip>

Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop the war.

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a “goal” for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate — but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters — political cover.

[Jim__]

3. Time for the dems in congress to take a stand.

No more Friedman units. No more one more chance. No more bullshit.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Where's The Outrage?

Recently I heard a discussion with a Vietnam War activist all but slamming how unorganized and ineffective today's anti-war protestors are. How many of them are into street theater and alternative agendas that have done to energize "the masses" like the protest movement in the 60's. You don't see the large protests as groups that should be working together are constantly fighting and petty jealousy and egos have done more to help the booosh regime than to energize support against the war.

He specifically pointed that there should be 500,000 or 1,000,000 people on the Mall when Petreus gives his "report"...have the voices of the people not just heard, but seen. He was very critical of blogs...saying many of them are havens for protest with little real action or organization. How it's easy to post a bitch in a diary, blog or message board and that this seems to be enough for most. They aren't hitting the streets or getting in the politicians faces like they did in the "good old days".

While I see some revisionism in what he said...there were plenty of egos flying around in the 60s and 70s, the lack of a large public display has to be a factor in why this regime continues to lie and spin and Democrats inside the beltway are hit by both right and left along with the corporate media. He was right in the need to get the politicians to SEE the majority...especially inside their bubbleworld.