Post #124
Subject: Endorsement?
Democratic – um, Independent –Senator Joe Lieberman is endorsing Republican Senator John McCain for President. Lieberman and McCain co-authored the 2002 resolution in which the Senate abdicated its Constitutional responsibility and authorized President George W. Bush to declare war – a cowardly act with an unfortunately long history in this country.
Lieberman, without a word about one coward covering another coward’s back, said, "Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America. Let's put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as President who will help us do that."
McCain said “Thank you for covering my cowardly ass” – no, wait, he didn’t. He really said, "It is one of the great honors of my political career to have known him, to have worked with him and to have received his endorsement."
A Lieberman aide said that the Connecticut senator decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against
Islamic extremism."
Aaahhh – there it is.
Who are these preachers of Islamic extremism, and how will kicking in a few more Baghdad help?
I quote from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/, from September 1, 2006.
“America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.”
“Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.”
Bombing Iran, democracy blooming in Iraq or invading Syria will NOT stop planes from flying into buildings. Our enemy is in Afghanistan – the enemy who should be the focus of our military. Simply, we need to be smarter in order to protect the interest and well-being of the United States of America.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Post #123
Subject: Exactly right-wing! :p
If a right-wing Nut has a good opinion, I’ll admit it. It’s part of that “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer” philosophy. I refer of course to “Knee-Deep in Religion.” by Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, December 13, 2007.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/13/knee-deep_in_religion
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney declares, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with "Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made." Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
[And that – “None of your damn business.” – is the only proper response. When I started this blog, God told me to never mention our relationship, and I find it hard to believe that God has approved of so much shameless pandering.]
Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.
In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.
Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.
The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.
This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.
Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.
But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed that it confers some special status.
Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn't, because the theme of the speech was that there was something special about having your values drawn from religious faith. Indeed, faith is politically indispensable. "Freedom requires religion," Romney declared, "just as religion requires freedom."
But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.
In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.
In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney. Just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.
This is pretty elementary stuff. I haven't exactly invented hot water here. The very rehearsing of these arguments seems tiresome and redundant.
But apparently not in the campaign of 2008. It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.
Subject: Exactly right-wing! :p
If a right-wing Nut has a good opinion, I’ll admit it. It’s part of that “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer” philosophy. I refer of course to “Knee-Deep in Religion.” by Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, December 13, 2007.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/13/knee-deep_in_religion
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney declares, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with "Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made." Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
[And that – “None of your damn business.” – is the only proper response. When I started this blog, God told me to never mention our relationship, and I find it hard to believe that God has approved of so much shameless pandering.]
Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.
In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.
Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.
The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.
This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.
Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.
But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed that it confers some special status.
Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn't, because the theme of the speech was that there was something special about having your values drawn from religious faith. Indeed, faith is politically indispensable. "Freedom requires religion," Romney declared, "just as religion requires freedom."
But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.
In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.
In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney. Just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.
This is pretty elementary stuff. I haven't exactly invented hot water here. The very rehearsing of these arguments seems tiresome and redundant.
But apparently not in the campaign of 2008. It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Post #122
Subject: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. Pt. II
Lieutenant General Robert Gard signed a letter to President George W. Bush critical of foreign policy last year – see my Post #14. On “Hardball,” then, Chris Matthews asked, “Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?”
And Gard answered, “I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.”
In my Post #112, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Simply, History would have told us what to expect – even the History of predictions! ;p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, from 1994)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Life in Bush’s Washington goes on -- unencumbered by that burden of History! :p
White House press secretary Dana Perino at a White House briefing held on October 26 was asked, "Do you want to address the remarks by President Putin, who said the United States setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe was like the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, setting up a Cuban missile crisis?" "Well, I think that the historical comparison is not -- does not exactly work," Perino responded.
The Cuban Missile Crisis? She didn't know what it was. "I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about… the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure." "I came home and I asked my husband," she said. "I said, 'Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?' And he said, 'Oh, Dana.' "
Ya would think that the press secretary for the President of the United States would have at least a passing knowledge of the most important event of the second-half of the 20th century. But consider who she works for? :p
Subject: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. Pt. II
Lieutenant General Robert Gard signed a letter to President George W. Bush critical of foreign policy last year – see my Post #14. On “Hardball,” then, Chris Matthews asked, “Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?”
And Gard answered, “I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.”
In my Post #112, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Simply, History would have told us what to expect – even the History of predictions! ;p
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, from 1994)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Life in Bush’s Washington goes on -- unencumbered by that burden of History! :p
White House press secretary Dana Perino at a White House briefing held on October 26 was asked, "Do you want to address the remarks by President Putin, who said the United States setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe was like the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, setting up a Cuban missile crisis?" "Well, I think that the historical comparison is not -- does not exactly work," Perino responded.
The Cuban Missile Crisis? She didn't know what it was. "I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about… the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure." "I came home and I asked my husband," she said. "I said, 'Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?' And he said, 'Oh, Dana.' "
Ya would think that the press secretary for the President of the United States would have at least a passing knowledge of the most important event of the second-half of the 20th century. But consider who she works for? :p
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Post #121
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. II
In my Post #112 – Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight” – I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, who called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame. “After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Careful readers of this blog will know that is exactly where I stand: We are stuck in Irag, and that has nothing to do with the War on Terror.
Sanchez also said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Yep, George W. Bush has never understood the appropriate role of the military: What they do, what resources are required to do what they do, and what resources are required for when what they do is over. The military is, after all, composed of people.
And, now, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "declaration of principles" to keep us mired in Iraq permanently – tho by not calling a treaty, a “treaty,” the Bushies manage to bypass Senate ratification. Simply, Bush wants to leave 50.000 of our troops as a “trip-wire” – like our troops in South Korea – to deter aggression from obviously Iran. How many peeps had our soldiers being held hostage as an original reason for supporting Bush’s folly? And how is that fighting Terror?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Our focus obviously should be on Pakistan – where jihadists are close to getting their hands on a nuclear arsenal.
Instead, we are being led “to support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.” Bush said that Iraq's leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” – Fact Sheet at whitehouse.gov : U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation.
There it is, peeps: Bush’s plan for domination of the Middle East. My, that’s a long way from the threat of WMD. It confirms my suspicion that Bush is making this up as he goes along. He has no idea when it’s over in Iraq, when it’s time to let the Iraqis sink or swim on their own, when it’s time to focus elsewhere.
At least, we won’t have to hear “the surge is working, the surge is working” any more – tho watch out for those “Bush as Truman” spins! :p
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. II
In my Post #112 – Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight” – I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, who called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame. “After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Careful readers of this blog will know that is exactly where I stand: We are stuck in Irag, and that has nothing to do with the War on Terror.
Sanchez also said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Yep, George W. Bush has never understood the appropriate role of the military: What they do, what resources are required to do what they do, and what resources are required for when what they do is over. The military is, after all, composed of people.
And, now, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "declaration of principles" to keep us mired in Iraq permanently – tho by not calling a treaty, a “treaty,” the Bushies manage to bypass Senate ratification. Simply, Bush wants to leave 50.000 of our troops as a “trip-wire” – like our troops in South Korea – to deter aggression from obviously Iran. How many peeps had our soldiers being held hostage as an original reason for supporting Bush’s folly? And how is that fighting Terror?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Our focus obviously should be on Pakistan – where jihadists are close to getting their hands on a nuclear arsenal.
Instead, we are being led “to support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.” Bush said that Iraq's leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” – Fact Sheet at whitehouse.gov : U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation.
There it is, peeps: Bush’s plan for domination of the Middle East. My, that’s a long way from the threat of WMD. It confirms my suspicion that Bush is making this up as he goes along. He has no idea when it’s over in Iraq, when it’s time to let the Iraqis sink or swim on their own, when it’s time to focus elsewhere.
At least, we won’t have to hear “the surge is working, the surge is working” any more – tho watch out for those “Bush as Truman” spins! :p
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Post #120
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution…
… and common sense.
American President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "declaration of principles" two days ago on Monday that will guide talks next year on reaching agreements covering a long-term relationship between the two countries. In other words, a treaty to keep us mired in Iraq permanently – tho by not calling a treaty, a “treaty,” the Bushies manage to bypass Senate ratification. And, ultimately, you.
So, even if you agree with Bush and think that your loved one should die in a permanent occupation, you have no voice in our government – of the people, by the people, for the people [rolleyes].
While Maliki said any final deal would require the Iraqi parliament's approval, the accord would not need backing from the United States Congress, Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the White House deputy national security adviser, said.
Seems like the Iraqis have a better grasp on this Constitutional democracy thing than we do! :p
The principles include how to "deter foreign aggression against Iraq," help Iraq "fight terrorism," encourage foreign capital into Iraq - "especially American investments.” Iraqi officials told the Associated Press news agency they foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 US troops.
Whatever happened to “we’ll stand down as they stand up” or “we’ll leave as soon as the job is finished?”
The obvious answer is that Bush has no idea what the “job” is. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.
Lute said the bilateral agreements will not contain timetables for withdrawing US forces from Iraq, a move Bush continues to resist. He added that it was important for neighboring countries to know that the US considers Iraq a key factor in regional stability.
Simply, Bush wants to leave 50.000 US troops as a “trip-wire” – like our troops in South Korea – to deter aggression from obviously Iran. How many peeps had our soldiers being held hostage as an original reason for supporting Bush’s folly?
Like that famous quote about the Korean War, a lieutenant said, “we can’t win, we can’t lose, we can’t leave.” I guess that’s pretty much where the Iraq war is now.
Democratic Party Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday criticized Bush for planning to leave US forces mired in Iraq after his presidential term ends in January 2009. "President Bush's agreement ... confirms his willingness to leave office with a US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy from Iraq," Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, said in a statement. "The president should take responsibility for his Iraq policy rather than expect the American people or the next administration to bear the consequences of his mistakes."
Oh, our children and their children will be paying for it. This is a War we can’t afford to lose, but we don’t have to pay for it either. I hope the kiddies enjoy the Iraq War bills in their Christmas stockings. :p
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution…
… and common sense.
American President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "declaration of principles" two days ago on Monday that will guide talks next year on reaching agreements covering a long-term relationship between the two countries. In other words, a treaty to keep us mired in Iraq permanently – tho by not calling a treaty, a “treaty,” the Bushies manage to bypass Senate ratification. And, ultimately, you.
So, even if you agree with Bush and think that your loved one should die in a permanent occupation, you have no voice in our government – of the people, by the people, for the people [rolleyes].
While Maliki said any final deal would require the Iraqi parliament's approval, the accord would not need backing from the United States Congress, Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the White House deputy national security adviser, said.
Seems like the Iraqis have a better grasp on this Constitutional democracy thing than we do! :p
The principles include how to "deter foreign aggression against Iraq," help Iraq "fight terrorism," encourage foreign capital into Iraq - "especially American investments.” Iraqi officials told the Associated Press news agency they foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 US troops.
Whatever happened to “we’ll stand down as they stand up” or “we’ll leave as soon as the job is finished?”
The obvious answer is that Bush has no idea what the “job” is. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.
Lute said the bilateral agreements will not contain timetables for withdrawing US forces from Iraq, a move Bush continues to resist. He added that it was important for neighboring countries to know that the US considers Iraq a key factor in regional stability.
Simply, Bush wants to leave 50.000 US troops as a “trip-wire” – like our troops in South Korea – to deter aggression from obviously Iran. How many peeps had our soldiers being held hostage as an original reason for supporting Bush’s folly?
Like that famous quote about the Korean War, a lieutenant said, “we can’t win, we can’t lose, we can’t leave.” I guess that’s pretty much where the Iraq war is now.
Democratic Party Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday criticized Bush for planning to leave US forces mired in Iraq after his presidential term ends in January 2009. "President Bush's agreement ... confirms his willingness to leave office with a US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy from Iraq," Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, said in a statement. "The president should take responsibility for his Iraq policy rather than expect the American people or the next administration to bear the consequences of his mistakes."
Oh, our children and their children will be paying for it. This is a War we can’t afford to lose, but we don’t have to pay for it either. I hope the kiddies enjoy the Iraq War bills in their Christmas stockings. :p
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Post #119
Subject: Faux news – false and unbalanced! :p
Has anybody else received that e-mail about China banning Bibles from the 2008 Beijing Olympics? The sources cited are the Fox News Channel and “other media sources.”
Fox News, huh?
Well, a quick Google search shows that the story is false – even Fox News itself is reporting it to be false….
Subject: Faux news – false and unbalanced! :p
Has anybody else received that e-mail about China banning Bibles from the 2008 Beijing Olympics? The sources cited are the Fox News Channel and “other media sources.”
Fox News, huh?
Well, a quick Google search shows that the story is false – even Fox News itself is reporting it to be false….
Friday, November 16, 2007
Post #118
Subject: “The war in Iraq has been won,” Pt. II
Well, I don’t know how to make it any clearer than in my Post #117 – I’ll include the link to that “cheerleading” article I referenced. :p
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html
I’ve tried short, practical views – my Post #58. I often refer to earlier Posts. I’ve used humor and quotes from others. I’ve responded to columns and TV transcripts. I’ve asked questions and have devoted whole Posts to questions – my Post #111, for example. But, still, all I hear is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.”
That attitude – “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors” – is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror. It is irrelevant, how we are doing in Iraq. Even if we whack every mole and turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Let’s say our military was at a Level 5 last summer when I started this blog. Now, we are weaker, our ability to respond to other threats is at Level 4. Let’s also say the world is a dangerous place, Level 5 last summer. Now, it’s Level 6 – indeed, Turkish troop have crossed the border of northern Iraq, Israel has committed an act of war against Syria. Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous?
Now, as we know from the book Dead Certain, the goal of George W. Bush is really to buy time so that the Republican Presidential candidates can be comfortable supporting the surge and a much longer military presence in the Middle East. And that is fighting terrorism how?
Oh, well, when you are making out your Christmas card list this year, please include the following:
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20307-5001
Subject: “The war in Iraq has been won,” Pt. II
Well, I don’t know how to make it any clearer than in my Post #117 – I’ll include the link to that “cheerleading” article I referenced. :p
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html
I’ve tried short, practical views – my Post #58. I often refer to earlier Posts. I’ve used humor and quotes from others. I’ve responded to columns and TV transcripts. I’ve asked questions and have devoted whole Posts to questions – my Post #111, for example. But, still, all I hear is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.”
That attitude – “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors” – is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror. It is irrelevant, how we are doing in Iraq. Even if we whack every mole and turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Let’s say our military was at a Level 5 last summer when I started this blog. Now, we are weaker, our ability to respond to other threats is at Level 4. Let’s also say the world is a dangerous place, Level 5 last summer. Now, it’s Level 6 – indeed, Turkish troop have crossed the border of northern Iraq, Israel has committed an act of war against Syria. Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous?
Now, as we know from the book Dead Certain, the goal of George W. Bush is really to buy time so that the Republican Presidential candidates can be comfortable supporting the surge and a much longer military presence in the Middle East. And that is fighting terrorism how?
Oh, well, when you are making out your Christmas card list this year, please include the following:
A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20307-5001
Friday, November 09, 2007
Post #117
Subject: “The war in Iraq has been won”
But THE OCCUPATION continues….
Well, I am disappointed. I had an e-pal send me an article that said, basically, the surge is working, “[t]he war in Iraq has been won,” and “we’re making progress” – to use the phrase my e-pal used. I am disappointed that my e-pal could not anticipate my responses and offer his own responses to my responses.
I realize that few peeps, if any, will stumble upon this blog and read the other Posts to get a feel for where I stand – that is why I often refer to earlier Posts. Yes, there is a reason for referring to earlier Posts BEYOND being lazy! :p
To summarize, the article was full of “smiley-face” conclusions based on little or no evidence and ignoring evidence to the contrary. Can ya say “cherry-pick?” :p
For example, the article says “[t]he Kurds have not broken away.” How do ya explain Turkish troops crossing the border? Aren’t those troops fighting Kurds who want a Kurdistan that will include a portion of Turkey?
The article also says “[v]iolence is falling fast.” Only 27 Americans killed last month. See my Post #89. :p
And “[a]l Qaida has been crippled.” Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Al-Qaeda in Europe??? Well, who? Who are these bad men that we have crippled?
Could it possibly be that the terrorists we have crushed were not there BEFORE we invaded? As Ron Paul said in my Post #116, “We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars” How can anybody claim that defeating a problem that we created, at that price, was justifiable? And we are still vulnerable…. * sigh *
However, the ultimate “smiley-face” conclusion – “The war in Iraq has been won” – is correct. Isn’t it time to “Party like it’s 1969!” – my Post #26? :p
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 George W. Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
That article also claimed “we went to war to free Iraq from a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction, and would not guarantee he would not do so again.” Um, I thought we went to war because the threat to us was imminent – fear the mushroom cloud, ya know! :p
If ya read Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD makes clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. It’s hard to believe that we were not lied into war.
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?
The trouble is, THE OCCUPATION continues….
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now – let’s end THE OCCUPATION.. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror – stop squandering blood and treasure. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. Yes, it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. The Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Subject: “The war in Iraq has been won”
But THE OCCUPATION continues….
Well, I am disappointed. I had an e-pal send me an article that said, basically, the surge is working, “[t]he war in Iraq has been won,” and “we’re making progress” – to use the phrase my e-pal used. I am disappointed that my e-pal could not anticipate my responses and offer his own responses to my responses.
I realize that few peeps, if any, will stumble upon this blog and read the other Posts to get a feel for where I stand – that is why I often refer to earlier Posts. Yes, there is a reason for referring to earlier Posts BEYOND being lazy! :p
To summarize, the article was full of “smiley-face” conclusions based on little or no evidence and ignoring evidence to the contrary. Can ya say “cherry-pick?” :p
For example, the article says “[t]he Kurds have not broken away.” How do ya explain Turkish troops crossing the border? Aren’t those troops fighting Kurds who want a Kurdistan that will include a portion of Turkey?
The article also says “[v]iolence is falling fast.” Only 27 Americans killed last month. See my Post #89. :p
And “[a]l Qaida has been crippled.” Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Al-Qaeda in Europe??? Well, who? Who are these bad men that we have crippled?
Could it possibly be that the terrorists we have crushed were not there BEFORE we invaded? As Ron Paul said in my Post #116, “We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars” How can anybody claim that defeating a problem that we created, at that price, was justifiable? And we are still vulnerable…. * sigh *
However, the ultimate “smiley-face” conclusion – “The war in Iraq has been won” – is correct. Isn’t it time to “Party like it’s 1969!” – my Post #26? :p
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 George W. Bush to Mt. Rushmore.
That article also claimed “we went to war to free Iraq from a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction, and would not guarantee he would not do so again.” Um, I thought we went to war because the threat to us was imminent – fear the mushroom cloud, ya know! :p
If ya read Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, the account of General ‘Spider’ Marks and his inability to get a straight answer as to what to look for in the way of WMD makes clear that Washington did not really buy the WMD argument itself. It’s hard to believe that we were not lied into war.
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?
The trouble is, THE OCCUPATION continues….
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now – let’s end THE OCCUPATION.. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror – stop squandering blood and treasure. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. Yes, it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. The Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Post #116
Subject: Why America loves Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we”re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
* * *
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Subject: Why America loves Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we”re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
* * *
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Post #115
Subject: Shoes As Terror Weapons!
“(CBS) The joint FBI-Homeland Security bulletin, obtained by CBS News today [October 26, 2007], bluntly warns that terrorists are still working to use ‘modified footwear as a concealment method for explosive devices,’ CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports. The alert follows the discovery of bomb detonators - expertly hidden in the hollowed-out soles of this pair of shoes - found aboard a European bus last month. “
So, let’s bomb Iran! :p
As best as I can figure, the type of neo-con lunacy as subscribed to by the White House says that we must show terrorists that we’re tough – that’s the way to win the War on Terror. So, when we couldn’t finish in Afghanistan, we turned to Iraq – when we couldn’t finish in Iraq, we turn to Iran.
Bombing Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us, is not the answer. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us? Bombing Iran will just set us farther behind in the War on Terror.
Oh, how Osama must be smiling! The Soviet Union collapsed due to the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure. America seems determined to follow.
“Intelligence officials say the shoes were not being worn at the time, but instead were being used, as the document says, ‘to smuggle electric blasting caps across international borders for use in a terrorist attack.’ ‘The terrorists have an interest in explosive devices. They are trying to figure out the best way to push them, to move them through the system,’ said CBS News counterterrorism analyst Paul Kurtz.”
Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Al-Qaeda in Europe??? Well, who? Who are these bad men, and how will bombing Iran help us?
“Officials say there is no specific intelligence that terrorists are preparing new attacks against America. “
Um, wonder why this information was released….
Subject: Shoes As Terror Weapons!
“(CBS) The joint FBI-Homeland Security bulletin, obtained by CBS News today [October 26, 2007], bluntly warns that terrorists are still working to use ‘modified footwear as a concealment method for explosive devices,’ CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports. The alert follows the discovery of bomb detonators - expertly hidden in the hollowed-out soles of this pair of shoes - found aboard a European bus last month. “
So, let’s bomb Iran! :p
As best as I can figure, the type of neo-con lunacy as subscribed to by the White House says that we must show terrorists that we’re tough – that’s the way to win the War on Terror. So, when we couldn’t finish in Afghanistan, we turned to Iraq – when we couldn’t finish in Iraq, we turn to Iran.
Bombing Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us, is not the answer. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us? Bombing Iran will just set us farther behind in the War on Terror.
Oh, how Osama must be smiling! The Soviet Union collapsed due to the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure. America seems determined to follow.
“Intelligence officials say the shoes were not being worn at the time, but instead were being used, as the document says, ‘to smuggle electric blasting caps across international borders for use in a terrorist attack.’ ‘The terrorists have an interest in explosive devices. They are trying to figure out the best way to push them, to move them through the system,’ said CBS News counterterrorism analyst Paul Kurtz.”
Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Al-Qaeda in Europe??? Well, who? Who are these bad men, and how will bombing Iran help us?
“Officials say there is no specific intelligence that terrorists are preparing new attacks against America. “
Um, wonder why this information was released….
Friday, October 26, 2007
Post #114
Subject: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Where do we go from here?
In my Post #112, I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, “Still, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.”
I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat George W. Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. Turkish troops are ready to sweep into northern Iraq, Syria has apparently aligned with North Korea, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Could things get any worse?
Of course, they could.
In Charles Krauthammer’s column “Iraq divided” of September 7, 2007, he said: “The critics at home, echoing the Shiite sectarians in Baghdad, complain that an essential part of this strategy -- the "20 percent solution" that allows former-insurgent Sunnis to organize and arm themselves -- is just setting Iraq up for a greater civil war. But this assumes that a Shiite government in Baghdad would march its army into the vast Anbar province where there are no Shiites and no oil. For what? It seems far more likely that a well-armed and self-governing Anbar would create a balance of power that would encourage hands-off relations with the central government in
Baghdad. “
My respect for Charles just plummeted – either Charles is being foolish regarding human nature or he is lying about the possibility of a civil war to support his argument that the surge is working. I know that I said, in my Post #105, that Charles seems to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. But the reason for worry is that the new heavily-armed Sunni will march into the Shiite areas where there IS oil – then, ya have a civil war. Charles is just not listening – why does he continue to push a theory [the surge] that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous? I thought the Historical lesson of the Soviet Union was that the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure – led to their fall. How much longer will peeps agree with Bush and think that their loved one should die in a never-ending war? We‘ll sacrifice for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Subject: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Where do we go from here?
In my Post #112, I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, “Still, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.”
I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat George W. Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day. Turkish troops are ready to sweep into northern Iraq, Syria has apparently aligned with North Korea, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan.
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Could things get any worse?
Of course, they could.
In Charles Krauthammer’s column “Iraq divided” of September 7, 2007, he said: “The critics at home, echoing the Shiite sectarians in Baghdad, complain that an essential part of this strategy -- the "20 percent solution" that allows former-insurgent Sunnis to organize and arm themselves -- is just setting Iraq up for a greater civil war. But this assumes that a Shiite government in Baghdad would march its army into the vast Anbar province where there are no Shiites and no oil. For what? It seems far more likely that a well-armed and self-governing Anbar would create a balance of power that would encourage hands-off relations with the central government in
Baghdad. “
My respect for Charles just plummeted – either Charles is being foolish regarding human nature or he is lying about the possibility of a civil war to support his argument that the surge is working. I know that I said, in my Post #105, that Charles seems to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. But the reason for worry is that the new heavily-armed Sunni will march into the Shiite areas where there IS oil – then, ya have a civil war. Charles is just not listening – why does he continue to push a theory [the surge] that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous? I thought the Historical lesson of the Soviet Union was that the self-inflicted wound of bankruptcy – squandering blood and treasure – led to their fall. How much longer will peeps agree with Bush and think that their loved one should die in a never-ending war? We‘ll sacrifice for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Post #113
Subject: To protect and defend….
When the next President of the United States is sworn in, January of ‘09, she – :) – will swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Contrary to what ya hear, the most important job of the President is NOT to protect and defend the American people but rather to protect and defend the Constitution. As Ron Paul would tell ya, this country would be a lot better served if our political leaders would pay attention to the Constitution.
… from “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” September 28, 2007:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Mario Cuomo was a three-term governor of New York. Governor Cuomo, thank you for joining us. What concerns you about the Democratic field right now and what they‘re doing in terms of Iran?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, it‘s what they‘re not doing that concerns me most. What they‘re not doing is learning from the terrible mistake we made in allowing the president to seize the war power and take us to war all alone. It was his war. And we sent a few resolutions which were ambiguous and which didn‘t mean a whole lot, tagging along with him.
The Founding Fathers addressed the question of who and how you declare war and said it was the most important question that would face the country. And they were given two choices: give it to the president or give it to the Congress. Washington, who led the convention, said under no circumstances should a president have the power to declare war by himself, basically. And so it should go to the Congress. There was only one vote for the president.
And in the Constitution today is something we ignored in Iraq. It says, Article 1, Section 8, the power to declare war belongs to the Congress. The difference is—and this is what was said at the convention and it‘s common sense—you give it to one man, he may be mad. He may be an egotist. He may be misguided. Or he might be stupid. And instead, you should give it to the Congress. They represent everybody. The whole country will have an opportunity town participate in the deliberations. That‘s what should have happened.
And what should happen now is that the Democrats, who have the responsibility because they lead the Congress—we have the majority vote they should say this: There may come a time to go to war, but before you go to war, you should come back, read that Constitution, come to the Congress and let us all deliberate so all the people with congressmen can speak to their congressmen and can discuss this issue. Let‘s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we‘re sorry.
Now, remember, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the president. You can‘t adopt a resolution and say, Well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it‘s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the president you‘re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context. Assuming he was telling the truth, and I will, he was wrong about the reason for it. He was wrong about complicity. He was wrong about how many troops we needed. He was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there. He was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last, and now you‘re saying maybe he can start another war. It‘s a mistake.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to show real leadership, and the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don‘t, then the question is going to be, Well, when it comes to improvident war making, why are you any better than Bush?
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about—Governor, about this resolution this week. It declares the Iraqi—or rather, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. What do you think—what use could the president make of that resolution by the Senate and now by the House, as well?
CUOMO: Well, if you judge by history, he would say something like this, and this kind of lawyer‘s trick—but he has some lawyers around him. He would say, Well, they‘re terrorists—they‘re a terrorist group and they‘re associated with other terrorists, al Qaeda. And therefore, they are complicit with al Qaeda, and the authority you gave me to fight al Qaeda and to fight in Iraq, that covers these people. So you‘ve already given me permission for this. I don‘t need to go to the Congress. I‘m going to do it on my own.
That would be a terribly stupid and unconstitutional thing to do, and that should be dealt with now. Look, the practical part of it is, even if you don‘t agree with the constitutional argument—and I don‘t know how you can disagree, it‘s clear in the Constitution, all you have to do is read it. But even if you disagreed that he had to go back to it as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of practicality, he should.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CUOMO: At the very least, that language gives you an option. And the Democrats should say, Come back to the Congress, let‘s do it more thoroughly. Maybe the Congress will say there should be a war. I doubt it, but maybe they will. But it should be Congress and not the president.
MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, you are so far ahead—you are so far ahead of some of the other Democrats because I hear people on this program I say to them, Do you believe the president of the United States, this president or any other, has to come to Congress before he launches a military action against Iran? And they won‘t say he has to. They won‘t even insist on their constitutional role anymore.
CUOMO: You know why, Chris? Here‘s what‘s happened. And it‘s unfortunate, but this is what‘s happened. Ever since the Second World War, I‘m not going to say gutless, but timid Congress people and eager presidents went to war and committed acts of war, ignoring the Constitution. And they did it in Vietnam. And they did it in Korea. And the Congress never spoke out against it. As a matter of fact, the Congress to use the word again—was complicit with the president. In effect, they tried to hand their power over to the president.
And the Supreme Court never intervened because they have a very cute doctrine called “political question.” If it‘s an argument between you politicians, we‘re going to get out of the way. Incidentally, they didn‘t do that in Bush against Gore, the most political of all questions.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
CUOMO: They grabbed that opportunity. So there‘s something hypocritical about that power. But that‘s what happened. And so you got in the habit of ignoring the Constitution. And let me say this about that. You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion. You can‘t say, Well, we didn‘t do it right for a long time. Therefore, it doesn‘t count anymore. The Constitution is unchanged. Article one, section 8, if you want to declare war—and that‘s what dropping the bomb on the head of anybody is, it‘s war—you have to come to the Congress. And Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the leaders of the Democrats—wonderful opportunity to step forward and say, That‘s right, and if there‘s going to be a war here, you‘re going to have to come back to us to talk about it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the last war, the war, unfortunately, that continues and may continue for another decade, the way people are talking right now. And I‘m including the Democrats. I‘m not just pointing to Hillary Clinton here because I have other people I know in Congress who voted to authorize the war back in 2002. But when you challenge them at a party or somewhere, you say, Why did you guys vote for this war, they all say the same thing—Oh, we didn‘t vote to authorize the war. We just gave the president the authority to make a decision, and we thought he was going to continue with inspections. What‘s your response?
CUOMO: Here‘s my response. You‘re right, you didn‘t authorize him. You‘re right, you did try to delegate him, to take your power that the Founding Fathers said only you should have, and to deliver it to the president if he wished to use it. You can‘t do that. The power was given to you. It‘s not delegable. You can‘t turn around and give it to the secretary of state or give it even to the president.
They had a chance to make the president the person who declares war, and they said no, the Founding Fathers, and they said it very, very decisively. And my goodness, have you ever had a better set of facts to instruct you in how right they were? Look at what happened when you did leave it to this president and left it just to him and his advisers to decide on war. The whole United States of America now, you let them vote on whether or not they want a president all by himself, especially this president, to declare war again. God forbid!
Subject: To protect and defend….
When the next President of the United States is sworn in, January of ‘09, she – :) – will swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Contrary to what ya hear, the most important job of the President is NOT to protect and defend the American people but rather to protect and defend the Constitution. As Ron Paul would tell ya, this country would be a lot better served if our political leaders would pay attention to the Constitution.
… from “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” September 28, 2007:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Mario Cuomo was a three-term governor of New York. Governor Cuomo, thank you for joining us. What concerns you about the Democratic field right now and what they‘re doing in terms of Iran?
MARIO CUOMO (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, it‘s what they‘re not doing that concerns me most. What they‘re not doing is learning from the terrible mistake we made in allowing the president to seize the war power and take us to war all alone. It was his war. And we sent a few resolutions which were ambiguous and which didn‘t mean a whole lot, tagging along with him.
The Founding Fathers addressed the question of who and how you declare war and said it was the most important question that would face the country. And they were given two choices: give it to the president or give it to the Congress. Washington, who led the convention, said under no circumstances should a president have the power to declare war by himself, basically. And so it should go to the Congress. There was only one vote for the president.
And in the Constitution today is something we ignored in Iraq. It says, Article 1, Section 8, the power to declare war belongs to the Congress. The difference is—and this is what was said at the convention and it‘s common sense—you give it to one man, he may be mad. He may be an egotist. He may be misguided. Or he might be stupid. And instead, you should give it to the Congress. They represent everybody. The whole country will have an opportunity town participate in the deliberations. That‘s what should have happened.
And what should happen now is that the Democrats, who have the responsibility because they lead the Congress—we have the majority vote they should say this: There may come a time to go to war, but before you go to war, you should come back, read that Constitution, come to the Congress and let us all deliberate so all the people with congressmen can speak to their congressmen and can discuss this issue. Let‘s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we‘re sorry.
Now, remember, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the president. You can‘t adopt a resolution and say, Well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it‘s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the president you‘re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context. Assuming he was telling the truth, and I will, he was wrong about the reason for it. He was wrong about complicity. He was wrong about how many troops we needed. He was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there. He was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last, and now you‘re saying maybe he can start another war. It‘s a mistake.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to show real leadership, and the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don‘t, then the question is going to be, Well, when it comes to improvident war making, why are you any better than Bush?
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about—Governor, about this resolution this week. It declares the Iraqi—or rather, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization. What do you think—what use could the president make of that resolution by the Senate and now by the House, as well?
CUOMO: Well, if you judge by history, he would say something like this, and this kind of lawyer‘s trick—but he has some lawyers around him. He would say, Well, they‘re terrorists—they‘re a terrorist group and they‘re associated with other terrorists, al Qaeda. And therefore, they are complicit with al Qaeda, and the authority you gave me to fight al Qaeda and to fight in Iraq, that covers these people. So you‘ve already given me permission for this. I don‘t need to go to the Congress. I‘m going to do it on my own.
That would be a terribly stupid and unconstitutional thing to do, and that should be dealt with now. Look, the practical part of it is, even if you don‘t agree with the constitutional argument—and I don‘t know how you can disagree, it‘s clear in the Constitution, all you have to do is read it. But even if you disagreed that he had to go back to it as a matter of constitutional law, as a matter of practicality, he should.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CUOMO: At the very least, that language gives you an option. And the Democrats should say, Come back to the Congress, let‘s do it more thoroughly. Maybe the Congress will say there should be a war. I doubt it, but maybe they will. But it should be Congress and not the president.
MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, you are so far ahead—you are so far ahead of some of the other Democrats because I hear people on this program I say to them, Do you believe the president of the United States, this president or any other, has to come to Congress before he launches a military action against Iran? And they won‘t say he has to. They won‘t even insist on their constitutional role anymore.
CUOMO: You know why, Chris? Here‘s what‘s happened. And it‘s unfortunate, but this is what‘s happened. Ever since the Second World War, I‘m not going to say gutless, but timid Congress people and eager presidents went to war and committed acts of war, ignoring the Constitution. And they did it in Vietnam. And they did it in Korea. And the Congress never spoke out against it. As a matter of fact, the Congress to use the word again—was complicit with the president. In effect, they tried to hand their power over to the president.
And the Supreme Court never intervened because they have a very cute doctrine called “political question.” If it‘s an argument between you politicians, we‘re going to get out of the way. Incidentally, they didn‘t do that in Bush against Gore, the most political of all questions.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
CUOMO: They grabbed that opportunity. So there‘s something hypocritical about that power. But that‘s what happened. And so you got in the habit of ignoring the Constitution. And let me say this about that. You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion. You can‘t say, Well, we didn‘t do it right for a long time. Therefore, it doesn‘t count anymore. The Constitution is unchanged. Article one, section 8, if you want to declare war—and that‘s what dropping the bomb on the head of anybody is, it‘s war—you have to come to the Congress. And Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the leaders of the Democrats—wonderful opportunity to step forward and say, That‘s right, and if there‘s going to be a war here, you‘re going to have to come back to us to talk about it.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the last war, the war, unfortunately, that continues and may continue for another decade, the way people are talking right now. And I‘m including the Democrats. I‘m not just pointing to Hillary Clinton here because I have other people I know in Congress who voted to authorize the war back in 2002. But when you challenge them at a party or somewhere, you say, Why did you guys vote for this war, they all say the same thing—Oh, we didn‘t vote to authorize the war. We just gave the president the authority to make a decision, and we thought he was going to continue with inspections. What‘s your response?
CUOMO: Here‘s my response. You‘re right, you didn‘t authorize him. You‘re right, you did try to delegate him, to take your power that the Founding Fathers said only you should have, and to deliver it to the president if he wished to use it. You can‘t do that. The power was given to you. It‘s not delegable. You can‘t turn around and give it to the secretary of state or give it even to the president.
They had a chance to make the president the person who declares war, and they said no, the Founding Fathers, and they said it very, very decisively. And my goodness, have you ever had a better set of facts to instruct you in how right they were? Look at what happened when you did leave it to this president and left it just to him and his advisers to decide on war. The whole United States of America now, you let them vote on whether or not they want a president all by himself, especially this president, to declare war again. God forbid!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Post #112
Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight”
General Sanchez: No concerted effort in U.S. to devise a strategy to win the war in Iraq. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their "lust for power."
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
[And, ultimately, I would add, the American people who continue to vote for kicking in a few more Baghdad doors.]
Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not been held accountable.
He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
NSC spokeswoman Kate Starr issued a short response to Sanchez Friday evening:
"We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is retired he has an obligation to speak out.
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
[That is true, so true.]
The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he said.
"From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and military power," he said.
Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality to the American people."
"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power," he said.
Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said. "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed."
Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless there is a major change in commitment.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
[Yes, I quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #1, “We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”]
[Yes, three options:]
[1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. George W. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point. Bush lacks the leadership skills necessary to plainly and bluntly ask for the kind of shared sacrifice that is so obviously necessary. Bush just wants to get out of office without the responsibility for his defeat. What a small man.]
[2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.]
[3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible. I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.” Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day.]
"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.
The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for power in Washington ends.
"National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives."
"Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope."
Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight”
General Sanchez: No concerted effort in U.S. to devise a strategy to win the war in Iraq. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their "lust for power."
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
[And, ultimately, I would add, the American people who continue to vote for kicking in a few more Baghdad doors.]
Sanchez told a group of military reporters in Arlington, Virginia, on Friday that such dereliction of duty by a military officer would mean immediate dismissal or court martial, but the politicians have not been held accountable.
He said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.
Still, he said, the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq without causing chaos that would have global implications.
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.
Sanchez pointed to what he said was "neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level" which has put the U.S. military into "an intractable situation" in Iraq.
NSC spokeswoman Kate Starr issued a short response to Sanchez Friday evening:
"We appreciate his service to the country. As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker said, there's more work to be done but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we're focused on now."
Sanchez, who retired in 2006, said it was his duty to obey orders and not object publicly when he was on active duty, but now that he is retired he has an obligation to speak out.
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
[That is true, so true.]
The administration, he said, has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that "our military alone could not achieve victory" without corresponding help from the State Department.
"Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone," he said.
"From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and military power," he said.
Sanchez said the current strategy, which included a "surge" of troops into Iraq, was "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality to the American people."
"Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power," he said.
Congress, he said, has failed its job of oversight.
"Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war," he said. "They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed."
Sanchez was pessimistic about the chances of victory in Iraq unless there is a major change in commitment.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
[Yes, I quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #1, “We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”]
[Yes, three options:]
[1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. George W. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point. Bush lacks the leadership skills necessary to plainly and bluntly ask for the kind of shared sacrifice that is so obviously necessary. Bush just wants to get out of office without the responsibility for his defeat. What a small man.]
[2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.]
[3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible. I also quoted Pat Buchanan in my Post #37, “But those consequences [of a withdrawal] are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.” Yes, and it is past time for us to accept the consequences of the defeat Bush has inflicted upon us because those consequences get worse with each passing day.]
"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.
The nightmare will not end, he said, until the partisan struggle for power in Washington ends.
"National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising an effective, executable and supportable strategies," he said. "At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives."
"Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq," he said. "Without bipartisan cooperation, we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Post #111
Subject: Nine questions
Here are nine questions that I’d like to see every Presidential candidate answer – well, at least six answers. And I think every voter should answer, too, by the way. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
1. Did you support our going into Afghanistan? [Yes]
2. If no, why not?
3. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [To get those who attacked us on 9/11 – including you-know-who, to destroy terrorist training camps where future attacks could be hatched, to topple the government that harbored ‘em.]
4. Did you support our going into Iraq? [No]
5. If no, why not? [As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Even Hitler appreciated the dangers of two fronts]
6. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [Well, once we went anyway, to secure and destroy WMD, to topple Saddam. Now, we are stuck in a never-ending war. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
7. Do you support our bombing Iran? [No]
8. If no, why not? [We ought not to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?]
9. If yes, what do you want us to accomplish?
Subject: Nine questions
Here are nine questions that I’d like to see every Presidential candidate answer – well, at least six answers. And I think every voter should answer, too, by the way. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
1. Did you support our going into Afghanistan? [Yes]
2. If no, why not?
3. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [To get those who attacked us on 9/11 – including you-know-who, to destroy terrorist training camps where future attacks could be hatched, to topple the government that harbored ‘em.]
4. Did you support our going into Iraq? [No]
5. If no, why not? [As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Even Hitler appreciated the dangers of two fronts]
6. If yes, what did you want us to accomplish? [Well, once we went anyway, to secure and destroy WMD, to topple Saddam. Now, we are stuck in a never-ending war. The best simile I heard about the War is that the administration was like kids playing with matches and it blew up in their faces – they’ve been inventing reasons ever since.]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
7. Do you support our bombing Iran? [No]
8. If no, why not? [We ought not to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?]
9. If yes, what do you want us to accomplish?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Post #110
Subject: Why it is absolute insanity to bomb Iran.
Neo-cons are pushing.
The crowd who:
1. Is losing Afghanistan.
We’ve installed the mayor of Kabul – to use a dismissive phrase of Pat Buchanan. But… the War on Terror?
As I feared BEFORE we went into Iraq, the Iraq War has been a diversion from and a drain on the War on Terror. In my Post #36, Democratic Senator Barbara 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 fueling 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.”
General Casey – a phony soldier? :p
2. Has lost Iraq.
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.
By not claiming “victory” when it was ours, we are stuck in a never-ending war. What really gets me is that this what neo-cons want.
3. Now, wants to bomb Iran.
The argument that Iran was on the way to getting “the bomb” did not fly. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer.
Now, the justification for bombing Iran is that Iran is arming the rebels in Iraq who are killing the occupiers. How is that different from us arming the rebels in Afghanistan who killed Soviet occupiers? BEYOND the fact that it was us.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As even the most amateurish of observers – me – knows, Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran. He is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever.
It is insanity to follow neo-con’s theory of an even larger and ever-growing military footprint. It’s not like that theory has worked so well so far. Two strikes, and ya’re out! :p
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?” Who are phony soldiers?
It is absolute insanity to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?
Subject: Why it is absolute insanity to bomb Iran.
Neo-cons are pushing.
The crowd who:
1. Is losing Afghanistan.
We’ve installed the mayor of Kabul – to use a dismissive phrase of Pat Buchanan. But… the War on Terror?
As I feared BEFORE we went into Iraq, the Iraq War has been a diversion from and a drain on the War on Terror. In my Post #36, Democratic Senator Barbara 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 fueling 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.”
General Casey – a phony soldier? :p
2. Has lost Iraq.
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.
By not claiming “victory” when it was ours, we are stuck in a never-ending war. What really gets me is that this what neo-cons want.
3. Now, wants to bomb Iran.
The argument that Iran was on the way to getting “the bomb” did not fly. As I said BEFORE we went into Iraq, the first time we are wrong about the reasons for a “pre-emptive war,” the harder it will be to launch another “pre-emptive war” – even if the evidence is clearer.
Now, the justification for bombing Iran is that Iran is arming the rebels in Iraq who are killing the occupiers. How is that different from us arming the rebels in Afghanistan who killed Soviet occupiers? BEYOND the fact that it was us.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As even the most amateurish of observers – me – knows, Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran. He is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever.
It is insanity to follow neo-con’s theory of an even larger and ever-growing military footprint. It’s not like that theory has worked so well so far. Two strikes, and ya’re out! :p
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?” Who are phony soldiers?
It is absolute insanity to target Iran, another country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Why ensure that another generation of 65 million Muslims hate us?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Post #109
Subject: Takin’ names: The Biden-Brownback-Boxer Iraq vote
Here’s a list of those Senators who voted to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq –that is, partitioning is already happening. Kurds already have a largely autonomous entity in northern Iraq with a separate president and parliament. And the emphasis on "bottom-up" efforts – such as Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province – is a de facto endorsement of partitioning. Maybe we can leave by nurturing that reality. The non-binding measure sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) won unusually broad bipartisan support, passing 75-23. It attracted 26 Republicans, 47 Democrats and both independents. "Slowly but surely, we're building a consensus in the Congress around a way forward in Iraq," said Biden.
Also listed are the Senators who agree with George W. Bush and think that your loved one should die in a never-ending war. They think we should be a cork in the bottle. We‘ll sacrifices for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Alphabetical by Senator Name:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea. Joe Biden: “The only way American forces can leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind and having a civil war [grow] into the region is to separate these parties, give them breathing room within their own federal areas and have a loosely knit central government that distributes revenues.”
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea. Norm Coleman told Petraeus, “We need something a little more than, say, Give us more time to come back again in the fall.”
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay. When did the Senate allow voting from the restroom??? :p
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea. Chris Dodd said, during Petraeus’ testimony, “Sixty-eight percent of Iraqis believe that the surge has hampered conditions for political reconciliation. Seventy percent believe that security has deteriorated as a result of this. Ninety-three percent of all Iraqi Sunnis think it‘s justifiable to kill Americans.” Dodd also said, “We have been begging that leadership for the last four-and-a-half years to get their act together, begging them to do it, but no real indication that we‘re getting any closer to that.”
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay. Russ??? I look forward to your explanation.
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay. Chuck???
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea. "We can't walk away from Iraq. That would make all the sacrifices that have been made irrelevant. But we do have a potential solution that can save American lives in the future."
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea. Amazing, really!
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting. John, did the “Straight Talk Express” have a flat tire??? :p
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting. Barack, I saw on your website where someone asked for an explanation. Well?
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea. Good job, G – I haven’t forgotten my Post #45.
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Subject: Takin’ names: The Biden-Brownback-Boxer Iraq vote
Here’s a list of those Senators who voted to recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq –that is, partitioning is already happening. Kurds already have a largely autonomous entity in northern Iraq with a separate president and parliament. And the emphasis on "bottom-up" efforts – such as Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province – is a de facto endorsement of partitioning. Maybe we can leave by nurturing that reality. The non-binding measure sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) won unusually broad bipartisan support, passing 75-23. It attracted 26 Republicans, 47 Democrats and both independents. "Slowly but surely, we're building a consensus in the Congress around a way forward in Iraq," said Biden.
Also listed are the Senators who agree with George W. Bush and think that your loved one should die in a never-ending war. They think we should be a cork in the bottle. We‘ll sacrifices for enhancing the security of the United States of America, but Iraq ain’t it!
Alphabetical by Senator Name:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea. Joe Biden: “The only way American forces can leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind and having a civil war [grow] into the region is to separate these parties, give them breathing room within their own federal areas and have a loosely knit central government that distributes revenues.”
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea. Norm Coleman told Petraeus, “We need something a little more than, say, Give us more time to come back again in the fall.”
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay. When did the Senate allow voting from the restroom??? :p
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea. Chris Dodd said, during Petraeus’ testimony, “Sixty-eight percent of Iraqis believe that the surge has hampered conditions for political reconciliation. Seventy percent believe that security has deteriorated as a result of this. Ninety-three percent of all Iraqi Sunnis think it‘s justifiable to kill Americans.” Dodd also said, “We have been begging that leadership for the last four-and-a-half years to get their act together, begging them to do it, but no real indication that we‘re getting any closer to that.”
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay. Russ??? I look forward to your explanation.
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay. Chuck???
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea. "We can't walk away from Iraq. That would make all the sacrifices that have been made irrelevant. But we do have a potential solution that can save American lives in the future."
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea. Amazing, really!
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting. John, did the “Straight Talk Express” have a flat tire??? :p
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting. Barack, I saw on your website where someone asked for an explanation. Well?
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea. Good job, G – I haven’t forgotten my Post #45.
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Post #108
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Biden-Brownback-Boxer Iraq vote
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As it becomes clear that President Bush plans to pass the Iraq war off to our next President, the debate over our policy there has reached a fevered pitch in Washington, DC and around the country.
Surge, Don't Surge, Timetables, Funding, Militias, Iran, Al Quaeda -- with all the lingo and spin being thrown around by everyone, it's easy to lose track of the most important factor that will determine what happens in Iraq.
That's the need for a political settlement in Iraq among Iraqis. Every Democrat and most Republicans agree there is no purely military way to stabilize Iraq -- there has to be a political settlement. That begs the question: what is that political settlement?
When you boil it all down, there are really only two choices in Iraq:
1. Continue to support, as President Bush has done, the idea that a strong central government will emerge in Iraq that will pull the country together, or
2. Realize that there is too much hatred and distrust for the various groups to reach consensus on the big issues, and begin to establish a federal system -- where each region of Iraq is given a great deal of control over its laws and government.
President Bush, and many Democrats continue to cling to choice #1, hoping against hope that if we just keep enough troops in Iraq long enough, or threaten to leave one more time, we can build or force unity where none exists.
Five years into this war, what's left for us to say to the Iraqi government? "We really, really, REALLY mean it this time."
It's time to abandon this strategy. It's not working.
I have called for a loose, federal system with strong regional governments for more than a year now, as Iraq's constitution provides. It would give Iraq's people local control over their daily lives – the police, education, jobs, government services, etc. And people from both sides of the political aisle are joining me to try to make this a reality.
Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and I introduced the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment, which calls for working with the Iraqis to transition the country into a federal system, as their Constitution allows and securing the support of the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors for this plan.
Majority Leader Harry Reid has called on Dems to unite in support for the measure and Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have joined us as co-sponsors. In an important display of bipartisanship, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) are also supporting the amendment.
MAJORITY LEADER REID HAS SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR 10 A.M. ON TUESDAY. So now, more than ever, we need your help.
There are 3 things you can do today to help us reach the only viable political solution in Iraq and begin to bring our troops home without leaving a bloodbath behind.
1. Click here, http://joebiden.com/getinvolved/petitions/iraq_vote , to sign our petition in support of the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment. We will send your signatures to other members of the House and Senate to convince them to support the amendment.
2. Call the presidential candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd to urge them to vote against the failed Bush administration's policy of propping up a central government by supporting our Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.
Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451
Barack Obama: (202) 224-2854
Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823
3. Call the other presidential candidates, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, and tell them to support a federal system in Iraq by supporting the Senators behind the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.
Bill Richardson: (505) 828-2455
John Edwards: (919) 636-3131
As I said earlier, the choice is pretty stark: you either think the central government in Iraq can get the job done or you don't. It's time for our nation's leaders, especially the ones campaigning to be President, to take a stand.
I know where I stand.
Join me to convince others that this is the best way to end the war and avoid a total catastrophe when we leave. Your action today will help shape this debate. Please act and forward this message to others who care about what's going on in Iraq.
Thank you,
Joe Biden
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Biden-Brownback-Boxer Iraq vote
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As it becomes clear that President Bush plans to pass the Iraq war off to our next President, the debate over our policy there has reached a fevered pitch in Washington, DC and around the country.
Surge, Don't Surge, Timetables, Funding, Militias, Iran, Al Quaeda -- with all the lingo and spin being thrown around by everyone, it's easy to lose track of the most important factor that will determine what happens in Iraq.
That's the need for a political settlement in Iraq among Iraqis. Every Democrat and most Republicans agree there is no purely military way to stabilize Iraq -- there has to be a political settlement. That begs the question: what is that political settlement?
When you boil it all down, there are really only two choices in Iraq:
1. Continue to support, as President Bush has done, the idea that a strong central government will emerge in Iraq that will pull the country together, or
2. Realize that there is too much hatred and distrust for the various groups to reach consensus on the big issues, and begin to establish a federal system -- where each region of Iraq is given a great deal of control over its laws and government.
President Bush, and many Democrats continue to cling to choice #1, hoping against hope that if we just keep enough troops in Iraq long enough, or threaten to leave one more time, we can build or force unity where none exists.
Five years into this war, what's left for us to say to the Iraqi government? "We really, really, REALLY mean it this time."
It's time to abandon this strategy. It's not working.
I have called for a loose, federal system with strong regional governments for more than a year now, as Iraq's constitution provides. It would give Iraq's people local control over their daily lives – the police, education, jobs, government services, etc. And people from both sides of the political aisle are joining me to try to make this a reality.
Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and I introduced the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment, which calls for working with the Iraqis to transition the country into a federal system, as their Constitution allows and securing the support of the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors for this plan.
Majority Leader Harry Reid has called on Dems to unite in support for the measure and Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have joined us as co-sponsors. In an important display of bipartisanship, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) are also supporting the amendment.
MAJORITY LEADER REID HAS SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR 10 A.M. ON TUESDAY. So now, more than ever, we need your help.
There are 3 things you can do today to help us reach the only viable political solution in Iraq and begin to bring our troops home without leaving a bloodbath behind.
1. Click here, http://joebiden.com/getinvolved/petitions/iraq_vote , to sign our petition in support of the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment. We will send your signatures to other members of the House and Senate to convince them to support the amendment.
2. Call the presidential candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd to urge them to vote against the failed Bush administration's policy of propping up a central government by supporting our Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.
Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451
Barack Obama: (202) 224-2854
Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823
3. Call the other presidential candidates, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, and tell them to support a federal system in Iraq by supporting the Senators behind the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.
Bill Richardson: (505) 828-2455
John Edwards: (919) 636-3131
As I said earlier, the choice is pretty stark: you either think the central government in Iraq can get the job done or you don't. It's time for our nation's leaders, especially the ones campaigning to be President, to take a stand.
I know where I stand.
Join me to convince others that this is the best way to end the war and avoid a total catastrophe when we leave. Your action today will help shape this debate. Please act and forward this message to others who care about what's going on in Iraq.
Thank you,
Joe Biden
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Friday, September 21, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Post #106
Subject: Testimony by General Petraeus
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, CMDR., MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE, IRAQ: Sir, I believe that this is, indeed, the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don‘t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force Iraq.
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR JOE BIDEN (D), DELEWARE: Is it not true that the fundamental purpose of the surge, the primary purpose, political settlement, has not been met at this point?
PETRAEUS: Sir, clearly, we do not have a national-level political settlement.
RYAN CROCKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: There is an enormous amount of dysfunctionality in Iraq. That is beyond question. The government in many respects is dysfunctional, and members of the government know it.
SENATOR.CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now? For what?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
When the witnesses urged Congress to ignore the 15 of 18 benchmarks for progress that Iraq has failed to meet:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAGEL: Those 18 benchmarks didn‘t come from the Congress of the United States. Those benchmarks came from the Iraqi government and this administration. Somehow, it‘s the Congress dictated these benchmarks. Well, we didn‘t.
PETRAEUS: The military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Um, what are our military objectives? We removed the threat of WMD and Saddam – they were military objectives. Now, there are only political objectives left. And the BIG one: Drag out the dying so that George W. Bush can try to avoid responsibility for his War. That is why we fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: What I hear from you is that the American commitment is going to be open-ended, it‘s going to be open-ended into the future, and I‘m not sure the American people are willing to buy into that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The American people be damned when it comes to Bush’s way….
Subject: Testimony by General Petraeus
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)
SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, CMDR., MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE, IRAQ: Sir, I believe that this is, indeed, the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
WARNER: Does that make America safer?
PETRAEUS: Sir, I don‘t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force Iraq.
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As I – and others, by the way – feared BEFORE our troops went there, the Iraq War has been and remains a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror – that is, the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR JOE BIDEN (D), DELEWARE: Is it not true that the fundamental purpose of the surge, the primary purpose, political settlement, has not been met at this point?
PETRAEUS: Sir, clearly, we do not have a national-level political settlement.
RYAN CROCKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: There is an enormous amount of dysfunctionality in Iraq. That is beyond question. The government in many respects is dysfunctional, and members of the government know it.
SENATOR.CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now? For what?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
When the witnesses urged Congress to ignore the 15 of 18 benchmarks for progress that Iraq has failed to meet:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAGEL: Those 18 benchmarks didn‘t come from the Congress of the United States. Those benchmarks came from the Iraqi government and this administration. Somehow, it‘s the Congress dictated these benchmarks. Well, we didn‘t.
PETRAEUS: The military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Um, what are our military objectives? We removed the threat of WMD and Saddam – they were military objectives. Now, there are only political objectives left. And the BIG one: Drag out the dying so that George W. Bush can try to avoid responsibility for his War. That is why we fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: What I hear from you is that the American commitment is going to be open-ended, it‘s going to be open-ended into the future, and I‘m not sure the American people are willing to buy into that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The American people be damned when it comes to Bush’s way….
Friday, September 14, 2007
Post #105
Subject: An open letter to Charles Krauthammer….
I like the way you write – thoughtful, respectful. You seem to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. As a rhetorical device, I like the way use “reality’ and “logic” in your arguments as tho your view is the only “correct” view – I do the same in this blog. :p
Which brings up “Iraq divided” – your column of September 7, 2007. You said: “It took political Washington a good six months to catch up to the fact that something significant was happening in Iraq's Anbar province, where the former-insurgent Sunni tribes switched sides and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, Washington has not yet caught up to the next reality: Iraq is being partitioned -- and, like everything else in Iraq today, it is happening from the ground up.”
The partitioning of Iraq is an idea that was discussed BEFORE the invasion. As you wrote, “Joe Biden, Peter Galbraith, Leslie Gelb and many other thoughtful scholars and politicians have long been calling for partition.” Indeed, Senator Joe Biden has been running for President for more than a year on the adoption of a partitioning plan – the Biden-Gelb plan. Joe said, “… that [plan] offers the possibility of stabilizing Iraq as we leave. [The] plan is based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center because the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are too fearful of each other to entrust their futures to one another.”
More reality for ya! :p In other words, Bush’s dream of a Jeffersonian democracy is unrealistic. Reality also says that we will leave eventually. This war must end. We must begin to get out now, protecting our troops as we withdraw – not wasting more blood and treasure for an unrealistic dream. Leaving Iraq is necessary. We also have to manage the aftermath, to shape what we leave behind so that we don't endanger America's interests for a generation. That is, partitioning.
You have laid it out: “A weak, partitioned Iraq is not the best outcome. We had hoped for much more. Our original objective was a democratic and unified post-Saddam Iraq. But it has turned out to be a bridge too far. We tried to give the Iraqis a republic, but their leaders turned out to be, tragically, too driven by sectarian sentiment, by an absence of national identity and by the habits of suspicion and maneuver cultivated during decades in the underground of Saddam's totalitarian state. … Whatever the reasons, we now have to look for the second-best outcome. A democratic unified Iraq might someday emerge. Perhaps today's ground-up reconciliation in the provinces will translate into tomorrow's ground-up national reconciliation. Possible, but highly doubtful. What is far more certain is what we are getting now: ground-up partition.”
Exactly. But your “logic” fails me in your last paragraph: ‘This is not the best outcome, but it is far better than the savage and dangerous dictatorship we overthrew. And infinitely better than what will follow if we give up in mid-surge and withdraw -- and allow the partitioning of Iraq to dissolve into chaos.”
Even tho Iraqis are standing up in Anbar, we cannot stand down. Huh?
Subject: An open letter to Charles Krauthammer….
I like the way you write – thoughtful, respectful. You seem to actually listen to “the opposition” and try to understand without the usual dim-witted snipes of many right-wing-ers. As a rhetorical device, I like the way use “reality’ and “logic” in your arguments as tho your view is the only “correct” view – I do the same in this blog. :p
Which brings up “Iraq divided” – your column of September 7, 2007. You said: “It took political Washington a good six months to catch up to the fact that something significant was happening in Iraq's Anbar province, where the former-insurgent Sunni tribes switched sides and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, Washington has not yet caught up to the next reality: Iraq is being partitioned -- and, like everything else in Iraq today, it is happening from the ground up.”
The partitioning of Iraq is an idea that was discussed BEFORE the invasion. As you wrote, “Joe Biden, Peter Galbraith, Leslie Gelb and many other thoughtful scholars and politicians have long been calling for partition.” Indeed, Senator Joe Biden has been running for President for more than a year on the adoption of a partitioning plan – the Biden-Gelb plan. Joe said, “… that [plan] offers the possibility of stabilizing Iraq as we leave. [The] plan is based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center because the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are too fearful of each other to entrust their futures to one another.”
More reality for ya! :p In other words, Bush’s dream of a Jeffersonian democracy is unrealistic. Reality also says that we will leave eventually. This war must end. We must begin to get out now, protecting our troops as we withdraw – not wasting more blood and treasure for an unrealistic dream. Leaving Iraq is necessary. We also have to manage the aftermath, to shape what we leave behind so that we don't endanger America's interests for a generation. That is, partitioning.
You have laid it out: “A weak, partitioned Iraq is not the best outcome. We had hoped for much more. Our original objective was a democratic and unified post-Saddam Iraq. But it has turned out to be a bridge too far. We tried to give the Iraqis a republic, but their leaders turned out to be, tragically, too driven by sectarian sentiment, by an absence of national identity and by the habits of suspicion and maneuver cultivated during decades in the underground of Saddam's totalitarian state. … Whatever the reasons, we now have to look for the second-best outcome. A democratic unified Iraq might someday emerge. Perhaps today's ground-up reconciliation in the provinces will translate into tomorrow's ground-up national reconciliation. Possible, but highly doubtful. What is far more certain is what we are getting now: ground-up partition.”
Exactly. But your “logic” fails me in your last paragraph: ‘This is not the best outcome, but it is far better than the savage and dangerous dictatorship we overthrew. And infinitely better than what will follow if we give up in mid-surge and withdraw -- and allow the partitioning of Iraq to dissolve into chaos.”
Even tho Iraqis are standing up in Anbar, we cannot stand down. Huh?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Post #104
Subject: 9/11, revisited
President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, “These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can’t get ‘em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us.”
Wait – was that a dream or a nightmare?
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, “It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies’ committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.”
The Secretaries’ first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda” It was, Clarke wrote, “developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said, “I’m concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center.:”
And where was Bush?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, “What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”
And they gave us Iraq instead….
Subject: 9/11, revisited
President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, “These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can’t get ‘em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us.”
Wait – was that a dream or a nightmare?
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, “It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies’ committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.”
The Secretaries’ first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda” It was, Clarke wrote, “developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said, “I’m concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center.:”
And where was Bush?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, “What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?”
And they gave us Iraq instead….
Friday, September 07, 2007
Post #103
Subject: The reality of the surge….
The original purpose of the surge, as defined by George W. Bush – to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis. But even neo-cons can agree – “at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.” – see my Post #102.
Therefore, according to Bush’s own original purpose, the surge has failed.
“And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain.” – Senator Joe Biden, my Post #50 from January 2007. If only they had listened…. * sigh *
Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden said, ”The inability of the government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government…. that cannot function."
Two weeks ago, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious” -- um, less stable – “over the next six to twelve months."
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Let’s say our military was at a Level 5 last summer when I started this blog. Now, we are weaker, our ability to respond to other threats is at Level 4. Let’s also say the world is a dangerous place, Level 5 last summer. Now, it’s Level 6 – indeed, I heard the other day that Turkish troops are massed on the border of northern Iraq ready to sweep in when we leave. Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous?
Now, as we know from the book Dead Certain, Bush’s goal is really to buy time so that the Republican Presidential candidates can be comfortable supporting the surge and a much longer military presence in the Middle East. And that is fighting terrorism how? Were those involved in the planned attacks reveled this week from Baghdad?
Subject: The reality of the surge….
The original purpose of the surge, as defined by George W. Bush – to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis. But even neo-cons can agree – “at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.” – see my Post #102.
Therefore, according to Bush’s own original purpose, the surge has failed.
“And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain.” – Senator Joe Biden, my Post #50 from January 2007. If only they had listened…. * sigh *
Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden said, ”The inability of the government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government…. that cannot function."
Two weeks ago, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious” -- um, less stable – “over the next six to twelve months."
Simply, it’s time -- and has been for a while – to “run, run, run away, live to fight another day.”
Let’s say our military was at a Level 5 last summer when I started this blog. Now, we are weaker, our ability to respond to other threats is at Level 4. Let’s also say the world is a dangerous place, Level 5 last summer. Now, it’s Level 6 – indeed, I heard the other day that Turkish troops are massed on the border of northern Iraq ready to sweep in when we leave. Does it make sense to continue to squander our military resources – blood and treasure –as the world becomes more and more dangerous?
Now, as we know from the book Dead Certain, Bush’s goal is really to buy time so that the Republican Presidential candidates can be comfortable supporting the surge and a much longer military presence in the Middle East. And that is fighting terrorism how? Were those involved in the planned attacks reveled this week from Baghdad?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Post #102
Subject: Self-inflicted wounds
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “The debate on Iraq takes a turn,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, August 24, 2007.
“WASHINGTON -- After months of surreality, the Iraq debate has quite abruptly acquired a relationship to reality. … [F]air-minded observers … agree that the surge has yielded considerable military progress….”
The surge has worked. We’ve whacked that mole. Even if true, that argument – we.ve whacked that mole – is irrelevant to the debate about how to best get us out of Iraq. And make no mistake: It is in America’s interest to get out; it is only in Nutty neo-cons’ interest to send more Americans to their deaths as they search for somebody to blame for their, uh, Nuttiness.
But, hey, look: “at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.”
Um, yes, Maliki has not followed the script.
Of course, what neo-cons do not seemed to have grasped yet: Freedom forced is not freedom at all. “[F]reedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The choice is difficult because replacing the Maliki government will take time and because there is no guarantee of ultimate political success.”
Therefore, more Americans should die?
“Nonetheless, continuing the surge while finally trying to change the central government is the most rational choice because the only available alternative is defeat -- a defeat that is not at all inevitable and would be both catastrophic and self-inflicted.
What is inevitable is that the whole lazy, shallow neo-con way of viewing the world, when taken from the pages of academics and applied to foreign policy, will be catastrophic… but not self-inflicted. I did not vote for this mess!
Subject: Self-inflicted wounds
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “The debate on Iraq takes a turn,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, August 24, 2007.
“WASHINGTON -- After months of surreality, the Iraq debate has quite abruptly acquired a relationship to reality. … [F]air-minded observers … agree that the surge has yielded considerable military progress….”
The surge has worked. We’ve whacked that mole. Even if true, that argument – we.ve whacked that mole – is irrelevant to the debate about how to best get us out of Iraq. And make no mistake: It is in America’s interest to get out; it is only in Nutty neo-cons’ interest to send more Americans to their deaths as they search for somebody to blame for their, uh, Nuttiness.
But, hey, look: “at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.”
Um, yes, Maliki has not followed the script.
Of course, what neo-cons do not seemed to have grasped yet: Freedom forced is not freedom at all. “[F]reedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The choice is difficult because replacing the Maliki government will take time and because there is no guarantee of ultimate political success.”
Therefore, more Americans should die?
“Nonetheless, continuing the surge while finally trying to change the central government is the most rational choice because the only available alternative is defeat -- a defeat that is not at all inevitable and would be both catastrophic and self-inflicted.
What is inevitable is that the whole lazy, shallow neo-con way of viewing the world, when taken from the pages of academics and applied to foreign policy, will be catastrophic… but not self-inflicted. I did not vote for this mess!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Post #101
Subject: ...back to Vietnam
"The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest … is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes....The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next.” – Lyndon B. Johnson, April 7, 1965.
Shortly after the 1965 speech, Johnson surged – he increased the number of U.S. troops sent to the war zone. By the end of that year there were about 200,000 Americans in Vietnam. Our combat involvement in that war would last for eight more years with more than 55,000 American deaths.
“We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today.” -- George W. Bush, August 22, 2007
And I thought you just said, Mr. President, you were going to learn from history. What about the costs of a war that is not winnable? No matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. And you lack the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
“The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America not attack America.” – Bush, August 22, 2007.
But even turning Iraq into the 51st state will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not. So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," -- Bush, August 22, 2007
No debate here: We were lied into Vietnam, we were lied into Iraq -- as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.” We left Vietnam with our tail between our legs, we will be leaving Iraq. The only question is how much tail Bush will leave us with?
I’m including Johnson’s 1965 speech. Perhaps those in the White House can see the folly of Bush’s democracy project, the Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Or perhaps the Weasels will learn that things will surely turn around in a few months if the critics in Congress and the press will just shut up. Let’s go back into Vietnam and get it right! :p
***
Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.
Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.
Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?
We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.
This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.
We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.
Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.
And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.
The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.
To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia -- as we did in Europe -- in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.
We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.
We do this in order to slow down aggression.
We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.
We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.
We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.
I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge.
Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.
Subject: ...back to Vietnam
"The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest … is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes....The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next.” – Lyndon B. Johnson, April 7, 1965.
Shortly after the 1965 speech, Johnson surged – he increased the number of U.S. troops sent to the war zone. By the end of that year there were about 200,000 Americans in Vietnam. Our combat involvement in that war would last for eight more years with more than 55,000 American deaths.
“We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today.” -- George W. Bush, August 22, 2007
And I thought you just said, Mr. President, you were going to learn from history. What about the costs of a war that is not winnable? No matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. And you lack the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
“The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America not attack America.” – Bush, August 22, 2007.
But even turning Iraq into the 51st state will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not. So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," -- Bush, August 22, 2007
No debate here: We were lied into Vietnam, we were lied into Iraq -- as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.” We left Vietnam with our tail between our legs, we will be leaving Iraq. The only question is how much tail Bush will leave us with?
I’m including Johnson’s 1965 speech. Perhaps those in the White House can see the folly of Bush’s democracy project, the Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats.
Or perhaps the Weasels will learn that things will surely turn around in a few months if the critics in Congress and the press will just shut up. Let’s go back into Vietnam and get it right! :p
***
Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.
Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.
Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?
We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.
This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.
We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.
Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.
And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.
The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.
To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia -- as we did in Europe -- in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."
Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.
We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.
We do this in order to slow down aggression.
We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.
We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.
We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.
I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge.
Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Post #100
Subject: Dick Cheney has been a Nut since ’97! :p
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
… from 1994:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Friday, August 17, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: OK. Now we know we had 9/11 subsequent to that. But the points that he made had to do not with the world situation the United States faces, Melanie, but with the situation in Iraq as it’s likely to take place, as it has taken place once we attempted to occupy.
MELANIE MORGAN, RIGHT-WING NUT AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:: OK. Well, let me just first of all say that Dick Cheney of September 10th was different one that of September 11th. And you glossed over that very quickly.
[What a load! Dick Cheney was obsessed with Saddam on 9/10 – 9/11 just gave him an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if he had to lie about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama?]
MATTHEWS: But Iraq was Iraq.
MORGAN: We have had 3,000 American lives lost as a result of.Islamic terrorists who attacked us in this country.
MATTHEWS: I knew you would say that. How does that relate to how the outlook in Iraq was the same then as it has turned out to be now? He had it right about Iraq. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
MORGAN: We have had some very serious things take place. We are in Iraq for the right reasons. We are trying to stop the spread of the Islamic terrorism.
[Uh, how does that work? Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that stopping the spread of Islamic terrorism?]
CRAIG CRAWFORD, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, I do think there is an 9/11 component. Let me just attempt this explanation, is one I’ve heard from sympathizers to Cheney, is that he really came to believe after 9/11 that our more pacifist policies, not going after Hussein, pulling out of Lebanon in the Reagan administration, had led to emboldening terrorists and led to 9/11. Therefore he was….
MATTHEWS: Right. But how did going back into Iraq lessen the emboldenment?
CRAWFORD: I think he, what has been explained to me is he believed that it was time to show great strength, and preemptive doctrine meant a lot to him, that going into Iraq would send a signal knot rest of the world, other countries harboring terrorists, and how tough we would be.
[No, Cheney and his pals had a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11. Yes, we’ve sent a signal…. * sigh *]
Subject: Dick Cheney has been a Nut since ’97! :p
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
… from 1994:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Friday, August 17, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: OK. Now we know we had 9/11 subsequent to that. But the points that he made had to do not with the world situation the United States faces, Melanie, but with the situation in Iraq as it’s likely to take place, as it has taken place once we attempted to occupy.
MELANIE MORGAN, RIGHT-WING NUT AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:: OK. Well, let me just first of all say that Dick Cheney of September 10th was different one that of September 11th. And you glossed over that very quickly.
[What a load! Dick Cheney was obsessed with Saddam on 9/10 – 9/11 just gave him an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if he had to lie about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama?]
MATTHEWS: But Iraq was Iraq.
MORGAN: We have had 3,000 American lives lost as a result of.Islamic terrorists who attacked us in this country.
MATTHEWS: I knew you would say that. How does that relate to how the outlook in Iraq was the same then as it has turned out to be now? He had it right about Iraq. Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
MORGAN: We have had some very serious things take place. We are in Iraq for the right reasons. We are trying to stop the spread of the Islamic terrorism.
[Uh, how does that work? Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that stopping the spread of Islamic terrorism?]
CRAIG CRAWFORD, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, I do think there is an 9/11 component. Let me just attempt this explanation, is one I’ve heard from sympathizers to Cheney, is that he really came to believe after 9/11 that our more pacifist policies, not going after Hussein, pulling out of Lebanon in the Reagan administration, had led to emboldening terrorists and led to 9/11. Therefore he was….
MATTHEWS: Right. But how did going back into Iraq lessen the emboldenment?
CRAWFORD: I think he, what has been explained to me is he believed that it was time to show great strength, and preemptive doctrine meant a lot to him, that going into Iraq would send a signal knot rest of the world, other countries harboring terrorists, and how tough we would be.
[No, Cheney and his pals had a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11. Yes, we’ve sent a signal…. * sigh *]
Friday, August 17, 2007
Post #99
Subject: Uh, waiting for a written apology….
Karl Rove, political super-genius, has been smoked out and gotten on the run. George W. Bush’s Brain is beating the posse out of town and heading to the Republican stronghold he built in Texas to write a book. Will he apologize for the injury he inflicted upon this country?
Yes, Rove gets credit for engineering two Presidential wins. The most generous assessment I’ve seen lately of the Bush administration is that Bush wanted to get elected but didn’t care for governing. Rove should have realized this by 2004 – his participation in the 2004 campaign was a Crime Against Our Country.
Now, we are stuck in a war that reality says was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake – he followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.” I condemn Rove for not knowing this by 2004 and giving us more of the same.
The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer. We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Rove faces the harsh judgment of History for his role in giving us a lazy, shallow way of viewing the world.
We should leave Iraq immediately and take our lumps now. The Iraq War has created a situation where the only options are “bad” and “badder” – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. 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. But Bush wants to keep digging, and Rove gave him a shovel.
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history and to try to recover from Rove. At least, he didn’t create that Republican majority he wanted – indeed, Rove helped to splinter the Republicans as more and more conservatives realize that Bush’s “neo-con” is NOT conservative at all.
Subject: Uh, waiting for a written apology….
Karl Rove, political super-genius, has been smoked out and gotten on the run. George W. Bush’s Brain is beating the posse out of town and heading to the Republican stronghold he built in Texas to write a book. Will he apologize for the injury he inflicted upon this country?
Yes, Rove gets credit for engineering two Presidential wins. The most generous assessment I’ve seen lately of the Bush administration is that Bush wanted to get elected but didn’t care for governing. Rove should have realized this by 2004 – his participation in the 2004 campaign was a Crime Against Our Country.
Now, we are stuck in a war that reality says was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake – he followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.” I condemn Rove for not knowing this by 2004 and giving us more of the same.
The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer. We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Rove faces the harsh judgment of History for his role in giving us a lazy, shallow way of viewing the world.
We should leave Iraq immediately and take our lumps now. The Iraq War has created a situation where the only options are “bad” and “badder” – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. 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. But Bush wants to keep digging, and Rove gave him a shovel.
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history and to try to recover from Rove. At least, he didn’t create that Republican majority he wanted – indeed, Rove helped to splinter the Republicans as more and more conservatives realize that Bush’s “neo-con” is NOT conservative at all.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Post #98
Subject: George W. Bush goes to a bar....
President Bush decides to leave the White House and go out to sit in a local bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush sitting at the end of the bar?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's him." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you doing in here?"
Bush says, "I'm planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, I'm going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde chick with big hooters."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big hooters? Why kill a blonde with big hooters?"
Bush turns to the bartender and says, "See? I told you, nobody gives a rat's ass about the 140 million Muslims".
Subject: George W. Bush goes to a bar....
President Bush decides to leave the White House and go out to sit in a local bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush sitting at the end of the bar?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's him." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you doing in here?"
Bush says, "I'm planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, I'm going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde chick with big hooters."
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big hooters? Why kill a blonde with big hooters?"
Bush turns to the bartender and says, "See? I told you, nobody gives a rat's ass about the 140 million Muslims".
Friday, August 10, 2007
Post #97
Subject: Lessons Learned?
If I was a moderator at one of those seemingly weekly Presidential debates – or if I had access to the technology to make a YouTube vid, I’d ask one question: Good or bad – what lessons have you learned from the Iraq War? Presumably, these lessons will be applied during a future [candidate’s name] administration.
To me, all lessons flow from the idea of… A Declaration of War. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is the undeclared wars which gives us trouble. There’s a lesson there.
Commit the country BEFORE you commit the troops. And as George W. Bush has shown, make that “Commit the country honestly BEFORE you commit the troops.” Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have been manipulated by fear.
The Powell doctrine – as followed successfully in ’91 – overwhelming force with a limited objective. At Bush’s press conference yesterday, he clearly reiterated his neo-con world view – that is, American troops will continued to be slaughtered in Iraq until ’09 for… WHATEVER! Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have supported this stupidity.
From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.”
When I started this blog a little over a year ago, I felt the Iraq War was winding down – truly. Our Army was nearing the breaking point, and the Republican party could not stand “stay the course.” I wanted to take a few parting swipes as Bush and his lazy, shallow neo-con world view were swept into the dustbin of history.
Now, our Army is stretched so thin that I can only pray no trouble breaks out someplace. The Republicans took a beating – the American people have spoken. And Bush stands, steadfast and sure, blind and deaf.
May God help us all.
Subject: Lessons Learned?
If I was a moderator at one of those seemingly weekly Presidential debates – or if I had access to the technology to make a YouTube vid, I’d ask one question: Good or bad – what lessons have you learned from the Iraq War? Presumably, these lessons will be applied during a future [candidate’s name] administration.
To me, all lessons flow from the idea of… A Declaration of War. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is the undeclared wars which gives us trouble. There’s a lesson there.
Commit the country BEFORE you commit the troops. And as George W. Bush has shown, make that “Commit the country honestly BEFORE you commit the troops.” Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have been manipulated by fear.
The Powell doctrine – as followed successfully in ’91 – overwhelming force with a limited objective. At Bush’s press conference yesterday, he clearly reiterated his neo-con world view – that is, American troops will continued to be slaughtered in Iraq until ’09 for… WHATEVER! Certainly, a Declaration of War would be a higher standard, and maybe Americans would not have supported this stupidity.
From my Post #45, Senator Gordon Smith said, “And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.”
When I started this blog a little over a year ago, I felt the Iraq War was winding down – truly. Our Army was nearing the breaking point, and the Republican party could not stand “stay the course.” I wanted to take a few parting swipes as Bush and his lazy, shallow neo-con world view were swept into the dustbin of history.
Now, our Army is stretched so thin that I can only pray no trouble breaks out someplace. The Republicans took a beating – the American people have spoken. And Bush stands, steadfast and sure, blind and deaf.
May God help us all.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Post #96
Subject: Never trust a man named Dick! :p
… from “CNN LARRY KING LIVE,” an interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, July 31, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney -- powerful, controversial, backer of a war that most Americans now oppose. Seen by some as the enforcer for an administration under siege. Vice-President Cheney answering some tough questions, next on LARRY KING LIVE.
[Ya know it will be an easy night for Dick when the host promises “tough questions.” :p But of course Dick would not go where there really were tough questions.]
KING: Don't you ever say, maybe I'm wrong?
CHENEY: No. I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do. And the -- and weigh the evidence. And there's a lot of debate and discussion. We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year, you may remember, when the president decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That's a time when we evaluated a whole range of options; when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints; met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff; talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground; and made a judgment. The president made a decision then, and the -- and I think it was the right decision that was to go with the surge.
[I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale to anybody who believes there was “a lot” of debate and discussion on the surge! :p Just like the War itself, the decision was made, and the rationalizations have followed,]
KING: ...in retrospect, you would still go into Iraq?
CHENEY: Yes, sir.
KING: So those 3,000 plus lives have not died in vain?
CHENEY: No, sir. Larry, you worry about every single casualty. And...
[And… what? Ya got to break a few eggs to get an omelet, right, Dick?]
KING: Do you feel the burden of it?
CHENEY: Absolutely. When you're in one of those positions -- the president obviously has the biggest burden. I shared some of that when I was secretary of defense during Desert Storm. There are times when you make decisions to commit military forces when you know that one of the results of that is going to be that there are going to be American casualties, that American soldiers are going to die. It's one of the most difficult things anybody has to do. It goes with being president of the United States. And we have to have somebody prepared to make those decisions.
[Um, did Dick Cheney just call George W. Bush callous?? :p Seriously, Dick, how do you “feel the burden?” Sleepless nights, hand-written notes, birthday gifts for orphans? Uh, wait – now I see: The burden is to be felt by the President. No blood on your hands, right, Dick?]
CHENEY: And I firmly believe, Larry, that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy. … There are always things in war that happen that nobody anticipated, surprises, things that don't go exactly as planned, that's the nature of warfare. But that doesn't mean the strategy isn't -- isn't the correct strategy, that the objective isn't the right objective. … When he [Bush] is finished, I'm finished. We walk out of here on January 20th of '09 and I think we'll be able to hold our heads high knowing we did the best we could for the country.
[Um, no, Dick – ya’ll have not done what is best for this country. This country was manipulated into supporting a war against a threat of non-existent WMD and non-existent links between Saddam and Osama. And ya’ll couldn’t get Osama, why not get Saddam? The objective was to get rid of Saddam – there was no strategy, no plans for what comes next. Now, we are in hole, and your only idea is to keep digging. And how is that best for this country? The threat of terrorism is still here. Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that best for this country? Well, you did the best you could – and that is truly sad.]
Subject: Never trust a man named Dick! :p
… from “CNN LARRY KING LIVE,” an interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, July 31, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Vice President Dick Cheney -- powerful, controversial, backer of a war that most Americans now oppose. Seen by some as the enforcer for an administration under siege. Vice-President Cheney answering some tough questions, next on LARRY KING LIVE.
[Ya know it will be an easy night for Dick when the host promises “tough questions.” :p But of course Dick would not go where there really were tough questions.]
KING: Don't you ever say, maybe I'm wrong?
CHENEY: No. I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do. And the -- and weigh the evidence. And there's a lot of debate and discussion. We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year, you may remember, when the president decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That's a time when we evaluated a whole range of options; when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints; met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff; talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground; and made a judgment. The president made a decision then, and the -- and I think it was the right decision that was to go with the surge.
[I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale to anybody who believes there was “a lot” of debate and discussion on the surge! :p Just like the War itself, the decision was made, and the rationalizations have followed,]
KING: ...in retrospect, you would still go into Iraq?
CHENEY: Yes, sir.
KING: So those 3,000 plus lives have not died in vain?
CHENEY: No, sir. Larry, you worry about every single casualty. And...
[And… what? Ya got to break a few eggs to get an omelet, right, Dick?]
KING: Do you feel the burden of it?
CHENEY: Absolutely. When you're in one of those positions -- the president obviously has the biggest burden. I shared some of that when I was secretary of defense during Desert Storm. There are times when you make decisions to commit military forces when you know that one of the results of that is going to be that there are going to be American casualties, that American soldiers are going to die. It's one of the most difficult things anybody has to do. It goes with being president of the United States. And we have to have somebody prepared to make those decisions.
[Um, did Dick Cheney just call George W. Bush callous?? :p Seriously, Dick, how do you “feel the burden?” Sleepless nights, hand-written notes, birthday gifts for orphans? Uh, wait – now I see: The burden is to be felt by the President. No blood on your hands, right, Dick?]
CHENEY: And I firmly believe, Larry, that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy. … There are always things in war that happen that nobody anticipated, surprises, things that don't go exactly as planned, that's the nature of warfare. But that doesn't mean the strategy isn't -- isn't the correct strategy, that the objective isn't the right objective. … When he [Bush] is finished, I'm finished. We walk out of here on January 20th of '09 and I think we'll be able to hold our heads high knowing we did the best we could for the country.
[Um, no, Dick – ya’ll have not done what is best for this country. This country was manipulated into supporting a war against a threat of non-existent WMD and non-existent links between Saddam and Osama. And ya’ll couldn’t get Osama, why not get Saddam? The objective was to get rid of Saddam – there was no strategy, no plans for what comes next. Now, we are in hole, and your only idea is to keep digging. And how is that best for this country? The threat of terrorism is still here. Ann Coulter said in my Post #95 that you beat fanatics by destroying the societies that produce them. Wasn’t the lead 9/11 hijacker from Egypt? Wasn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t Al-Qaeda alive in Pakistan? And we are destroying our military in Irag? How is that best for this country? Well, you did the best you could – and that is truly sad.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)