Post #57
Subject: NoMoreTroops.com
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
Subject: What you can do to Stop the Escalation in Iraq
The President and members of his administration are working overtime to convince Americans, and the world, that their proposal to send 21,000 more young men and women into Iraq -- escalating the war -- can salvage their failed policies there. Like millions of Americans, I have listened to the President's proposal but fear that it will only make the situation worse. Escalating the war in Iraq, and possibly into Iran and Syria now, is not a solution -- it is a tragic mistake. Now we need your help. I've launched a new website so you can add your voice to the growing chorus opposing the President's proposal. Please visit
www.NoMoreTroops.com
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Post #56
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” 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. We should leave immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – 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. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” 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. We should leave immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – 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. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Post #55
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I 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.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I 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.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Post #54
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “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?]
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “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?]
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Post #53
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Post #52
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Post #51
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “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. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Friday, January 05, 2007
Post #50
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Post #49
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“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, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
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.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, from my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“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, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
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.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, from my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)