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
Friday, September 28, 2007
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)