Post #40
Subject: We don’t have a dog in this fight.
From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:” “Even after 9/11, Americans were skeptical of marching to Baghdad until we were told Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and probably intended to use them on us. Americans had to be lied into war. … Americans … want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences. … But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. If one of those consequences is Impeachment, so be it. And, yes, I’m talking about George W. Bush and those in Congress who voted for the “blank check.” And de-neo-con! :p
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Post #39
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Post #38
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Friday, November 17, 2006
Post #37
Subject: Dyin’ for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore. And the Iraqi elections were another chance to declare “victory.”
Our civilian leadership has lost the peace. Military success has been squandered. Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
As Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Monday, said:
“Now, I think that our troops can certainly point to all of that. We have had, however, many problems doing what the president wanted, which was really to “bring democracy” and get people who have been warring with each other forever to come together.
“I think you have someone like Joe Biden, who is about to be chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying, look, let‘s deal with reality. And I think there is one crackpot view, if I might use your word, and that crackpot view is to keep on doing what we are doing.
“… I don‘t think “losing” and “winning” are the operative words. I think, what should our policy be to resolve this situation?” And place us on the “winning” side of the War on Terror. If Bush really wanted to win the War on Terror, he would have installed an ally and not leave it up to the Iraqis to elect an ally.
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.
“But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.
“While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.
“We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own. … [A] collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.”
So? I guess I’m too selfish, but how does that affect me? I’ve got a nephew who turns 18 next year. Should I support “Stay the Course?”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , also said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.”
Exactly. I’m looking out for #1. me. I don’t want to see a body bag with my nephew’s name on it – for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Subject: Dyin’ for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Our military has won the war. Success in Iraq has been ours. There were at least two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore. And the Iraqi elections were another chance to declare “victory.”
Our civilian leadership has lost the peace. Military success has been squandered. Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
As Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show Monday, said:
“Now, I think that our troops can certainly point to all of that. We have had, however, many problems doing what the president wanted, which was really to “bring democracy” and get people who have been warring with each other forever to come together.
“I think you have someone like Joe Biden, who is about to be chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, saying, look, let‘s deal with reality. And I think there is one crackpot view, if I might use your word, and that crackpot view is to keep on doing what we are doing.
“… I don‘t think “losing” and “winning” are the operative words. I think, what should our policy be to resolve this situation?” And place us on the “winning” side of the War on Terror. If Bush really wanted to win the War on Terror, he would have installed an ally and not leave it up to the Iraqis to elect an ally.
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Democrats are probably reading the country right. Americans will not send added troops to Iraq, as McCain urges. They want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences.
“But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.
“While our leaders never thought through the probable result of invading an Arab nation that had not attacked us, we had best think through the probable results of a pullout in 2007.
“We are being told that by giving the Iraqis a deadline, after which we start to withdraw, we will stiffen their spines to take up greater responsibility for their own country. But there is as great or greater a likelihood that a U.S. pullout will break their morale and spirit, that the Iraqi government and army, seeing Americans heading for the exit ramp, will collapse before an energized enemy, and Shias, Sunnis and Kurds will scramble for security and survival among their own. … [A] collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States -- emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world -- is a real possibility.”
So? I guess I’m too selfish, but how does that affect me? I’ve got a nephew who turns 18 next year. Should I support “Stay the Course?”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , also said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:”
“Americans are not driven by some ideological vocation to reform mankind. We do not have the patience or perseverance of great imperial peoples. If an issue is not seen as vital to our own liberty and security, we will not fight long for some abstraction like democracy, self-determination or human rights.”
Exactly. I’m looking out for #1. me. I don’t want to see a body bag with my nephew’s name on it – for the honor and glory of George W. Bush.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Post #36
Well, I got an e-mail with the following comment from another blog:
“Baker/Hamilton will cause the new Democrat majority to effectively ‘Stay the Course’ simply because the new Democrat majority leadership can successfully add: The victory margin for the tightest 15 House races that went Democrat total ~100K votes, which means that just over 50K votes going from the Democrat candidate to the Republican (that’s 1.6% of the votes cast in those 15 closest district races) would have retained GOP control of the house. In the Senate it’s even narrower, VA needed 3,616 GOP votes to change the outcome of the VA Senate race and retain the Senate; Montana only needed 1,424 GOP votes to keep the Senate for the Republicans.
“The Democrat leadership knows how precariously narrow this victory was. They can’t gain any more votes by going further left, so if they want to retain power then need to pick up more voters from rightward of their current positions - especially since they won’t have the Republican-controlled congress to run against next time around. “
I assume my take is wanted. :p
OK, the Republicans can add, too. How many Democrats won as Democrats by campaigning to “Stay the Course, Keep Floundering?” How many Republicans will win in ’08 by supporting a five-year disaster?
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show yesterday, said:
“The fact of the matter is, 60 percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll said it was OK to shoot and kill an American. Why do we want to send more over there? Seventy percent of the Iraqis say when we leave things will get better. So if we‘re doing this for the Iraqi people, why don‘t we listen to them, as well as to the American people?
“So, it‘s just an awful policy. It isn‘t working. I think people like Joe Biden, who has said, look, we need a political solution, we need a practical, political solution to sit the parties down, separate the warring factions, give them their own semiautonomous regions, keep a federal government in Iraq, have the oil divided equally among all the parties, and bring in the international community to peace the thing, that‘s what we really need now. Not more of the same.”
Of course, the smart thing to do is to pull a “John McCain” and call for 100,000 more troops now – by ’08, more troops will not be an option, and McCain can run against that cut-and-run Democratic Congress, saying that his way would have won.
But that is wrong. Again, from yesterday, Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fuelling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
George W. Bush has dug us a hole, and his only solution is to keep digging. The American people have spoken – “Stay the Course” is finished.
Well, I got an e-mail with the following comment from another blog:
“Baker/Hamilton will cause the new Democrat majority to effectively ‘Stay the Course’ simply because the new Democrat majority leadership can successfully add: The victory margin for the tightest 15 House races that went Democrat total ~100K votes, which means that just over 50K votes going from the Democrat candidate to the Republican (that’s 1.6% of the votes cast in those 15 closest district races) would have retained GOP control of the house. In the Senate it’s even narrower, VA needed 3,616 GOP votes to change the outcome of the VA Senate race and retain the Senate; Montana only needed 1,424 GOP votes to keep the Senate for the Republicans.
“The Democrat leadership knows how precariously narrow this victory was. They can’t gain any more votes by going further left, so if they want to retain power then need to pick up more voters from rightward of their current positions - especially since they won’t have the Republican-controlled congress to run against next time around. “
I assume my take is wanted. :p
OK, the Republicans can add, too. How many Democrats won as Democrats by campaigning to “Stay the Course, Keep Floundering?” How many Republicans will win in ’08 by supporting a five-year disaster?
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show yesterday, said:
“The fact of the matter is, 60 percent of the Iraqi people in a recent poll said it was OK to shoot and kill an American. Why do we want to send more over there? Seventy percent of the Iraqis say when we leave things will get better. So if we‘re doing this for the Iraqi people, why don‘t we listen to them, as well as to the American people?
“So, it‘s just an awful policy. It isn‘t working. I think people like Joe Biden, who has said, look, we need a political solution, we need a practical, political solution to sit the parties down, separate the warring factions, give them their own semiautonomous regions, keep a federal government in Iraq, have the oil divided equally among all the parties, and bring in the international community to peace the thing, that‘s what we really need now. Not more of the same.”
Of course, the smart thing to do is to pull a “John McCain” and call for 100,000 more troops now – by ’08, more troops will not be an option, and McCain can run against that cut-and-run Democratic Congress, saying that his way would have won.
But that is wrong. Again, from yesterday, Boxer said, “… when I went to Iraq the last time, General Casey was very clear. He said that our presence there in a large footprint is counterproductive. That is fuelling terrorism, and that is exactly what the intelligence estimate said, that our presence there is fueling terror. Sending more troops isn‘t going to help us at all. There already is chaos in Iraq. And our own intelligence people are saying that our presence there is fueling the chaos.”
George W. Bush has dug us a hole, and his only solution is to keep digging. The American people have spoken – “Stay the Course” is finished.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Post #35
Subject: ... more political dead weight
Dead woman wins Jerauld County race
PIERRE, S.D. - A woman who died two months ago won a county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday.
Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, got 100 votes, defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes.
Jerauld County Auditor Cindy Peterson said she believes the county board will have to meet to appoint a replacement for Steichen. Peterson said she'll check with the state's attorney to be sure that's the process.
Peterson said voters knew Steichen had died.
"They just had a chance to make a change, and we respect their opinion."
-----
At least, she has a good excuse for doing NOTHING!
Subject: ... more political dead weight
Dead woman wins Jerauld County race
PIERRE, S.D. - A woman who died two months ago won a county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday.
Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, got 100 votes, defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes.
Jerauld County Auditor Cindy Peterson said she believes the county board will have to meet to appoint a replacement for Steichen. Peterson said she'll check with the state's attorney to be sure that's the process.
Peterson said voters knew Steichen had died.
"They just had a chance to make a change, and we respect their opinion."
-----
At least, she has a good excuse for doing NOTHING!
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Post #34
Secretly, I’m pulling for Republicans. Two more years of screwing us, the Republican party will be delivered into the dustbin of History. A sweeping victory will await Hillary Clinton in 2008 – she will be greeted as a liberator.
Really, I’m pulling for Democrats. I realize that a Democratic victory in ’06 will make things politically tougher in ’08. However, the most important thing is to stop Americans being killed in Iraq. A Democratic victory in ’06 will mean Republicans in ’08 will blame Democrats for losing Iraq – tho the reality is that Democrats in ’06 were charged with cleaning up the mess of George W. Bush.
Secretly, I’m pulling for Republicans. Two more years of screwing us, the Republican party will be delivered into the dustbin of History. A sweeping victory will await Hillary Clinton in 2008 – she will be greeted as a liberator.
Really, I’m pulling for Democrats. I realize that a Democratic victory in ’06 will make things politically tougher in ’08. However, the most important thing is to stop Americans being killed in Iraq. A Democratic victory in ’06 will mean Republicans in ’08 will blame Democrats for losing Iraq – tho the reality is that Democrats in ’06 were charged with cleaning up the mess of George W. Bush.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Post #33
The political flailings of George W. Bush.
Oh, wait, that should be “failings” -- but “flailings” works just as well. :p
First, as I said in Post #31, Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
There were two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
Now, the course we're on has no end in sight – thanks to Bush’s impossible definition of “victory.” Joe Biden’s plan – again see Post #31 -- can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure. “Victory.”
Second, Bush is making the mistake of equating the Iraq folly with the War on Terror. No, it’s not – Iraq can be lost, as Bush seems determined to do, and the War on Terror won. We lost in Vietnam – tho Bush gallantly defended us from the hostile Mexican Air Force – but still won the Cold War.
Third, war? What war? To me, “war” means sacrifice, a shared sacrifice – Jen Bush patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Laura Bush planting a “Victory” garden on the White House lawn, Paris Hilton paying higher taxes. But I heard a Republican on TV justify fiscal irresponsibility by “war.” Huh?
With just a few of adjustments in his rhetoric, Bush can save his legacy. No, there’ll be no Mt. Rushmore in his future, but at least he won’t be ridiculed and hated as the President who ruined us. As Pat Buchanan said in “American Dien Bien Phu?” in his October 3, 2006 column:
“France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu in Indochina lead to a second war of national liberation in Algeria, the fall of the Fourth Republic and the call for Gen. de Gaulle to assume power. The general did, and he rang down the curtain on the French Empire.
“Are we facing an American Dien Bien Phu?”
Bush has lost Iraq by not claiming “victory” when it was his, and he’s trying to hand off closing the curtain on the American Empire to his successor. More than 100 Americans died in Iraq during October. Please, Bush, get it right….
The political flailings of George W. Bush.
Oh, wait, that should be “failings” -- but “flailings” works just as well. :p
First, as I said in Post #31, Bush is making the mistake of defining “victory” as “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
There were two chances to declare a “victory” that would have satisfied most people’s original reasons for supporting this mess. One, “victory” was achieved when our tanks rolled through the streets of Baghdad and our troops were not attacked with WMD. Two, “victory” was achieved when we found Saddam. At either point, had our troops come home, we would have begun adding Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
Now, the course we're on has no end in sight – thanks to Bush’s impossible definition of “victory.” Joe Biden’s plan – again see Post #31 -- can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. And make us more secure. “Victory.”
Second, Bush is making the mistake of equating the Iraq folly with the War on Terror. No, it’s not – Iraq can be lost, as Bush seems determined to do, and the War on Terror won. We lost in Vietnam – tho Bush gallantly defended us from the hostile Mexican Air Force – but still won the Cold War.
Third, war? What war? To me, “war” means sacrifice, a shared sacrifice – Jen Bush patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Laura Bush planting a “Victory” garden on the White House lawn, Paris Hilton paying higher taxes. But I heard a Republican on TV justify fiscal irresponsibility by “war.” Huh?
With just a few of adjustments in his rhetoric, Bush can save his legacy. No, there’ll be no Mt. Rushmore in his future, but at least he won’t be ridiculed and hated as the President who ruined us. As Pat Buchanan said in “American Dien Bien Phu?” in his October 3, 2006 column:
“France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu in Indochina lead to a second war of national liberation in Algeria, the fall of the Fourth Republic and the call for Gen. de Gaulle to assume power. The general did, and he rang down the curtain on the French Empire.
“Are we facing an American Dien Bien Phu?”
Bush has lost Iraq by not claiming “victory” when it was his, and he’s trying to hand off closing the curtain on the American Empire to his successor. More than 100 Americans died in Iraq during October. Please, Bush, get it right….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)