Post #90

Subject: ... will we never learn?

… from “Hamas in Gaza: Trouble All Around,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, June 22, 2007:

“WASHINGTON -- Gaza is now run not by a conventional political party, but by a movement that is revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist. Worse, Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi Army (among others) in Iraq, and the Alawite regime of Syria.”

I admit, I’m not obsessed with Israel, but, really, a “revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist” group – what does that have to do with us? “Hamas is a client of Iran.” So? Um, wasn’t East Germany a client of the Soviet Union? But Iran is arming the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops – I hear neo-cons say. Just like we armed the Afghan rebels who killed Soviet occupiers?

Maybe we should invade Iran. But, if we invade because they are arming rebels, let’s be consistent – think about how such a change in policy may effect us down the road. Consider the consequences.

But back to Hamas….

“The policy implications are obvious. There is nothing to do with the self-proclaimed radical Islamist entity that is Gaza but to isolate it. No recognition, no aid (except humanitarian necessities through the U.N.), no diplomatic commerce. “

And this will help how? Didn’t “isolation” get us an atomic bomb in North Korea? What is that quote about insanity being trying the same approach over and over and expecting a different result?

Speaking of insanity,… :p

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, INDIANA: In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Get our soldiers out of there. That’ll make them safer. Get our presence out of there. That’ll make us safer as a nation. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUGAR: In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Our security interests call for a downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. In 2003, we witnessed the costs that come with insufficient planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It is absolutely essential that we not repeat the same mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

In other words, it’s time for Plan B… from a crowd who obviously had no Plan A! :p

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I said earlier that it’s going to be a long, hot summer. It’s going to be tough. But on the other hand, it is absolutely vital, and this is one of the things Dick Lugar agrees on; in succeeding in Iraq. The question is, how best to do it. We think it’s important to give this plan a chance to succeed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.

Post #89

Subject: SPAM? Attention, neo-cons:

Are ya tired of branding the world?
Ready for retirement??

The place to be…
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS

See democracy bloom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEOGE W. BUSH: I just returned from Baghdad, and I was inspired to be able to visit the capital of a free and democratic Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Rockets red glare provided by sectarian violence.


Entertainment at
THE BAGHDAD VILLAS

Hunting with ‘Dead Eye’ Dick Cheney
Comedy with the ‘known unknown’ comic, Don Rumsfeld
Baseball, our recreational league organized by George W. Bush

We’ll even help with financing.
Our own financial guru, Paul Wolfowitz, will help you afford your ticket to paradise.


THE BAGHDAD VILLAS
where every neo-con should go



(pizza delivery NOT available)

Post #88

Subject: Somebody else has it exactly right….

Don’t ya just hate that!?! :p

Joe Scarborugh, http://joe.msnbc.com , has my respect. He is one of the few who ran for Congress and campaigned for term limits and promised not to seek re-election beyond what he felt was an appropriate term, and he didn’t. Joe followed his beliefs instead of clinging to power.

Unfortunately, Joe was wrong about the Iraq War. He thought it was in our national interests to remove the threat of WMD and Saddam. But now, Joe sees it is in our national interest to leave.

…from Joe’s MSNBC show, 'Scarborough Country,' May 29. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: America suffers through its deadliest month in Iraq in more than two years over the past 29 days. U.S. armed services are stretched to a breaking point, and the world is more dangerous today than at any time since the early morning hours of 11, 2001. And yet no one in Washington seems to know how to win this war, strengthen our military or make Americans safe. Why? Because once again, politics is trumping common sense.

Now, on the Republican side, congressional leaders have blindly followed the president, who continues to believe that the war on terror begins and ends in Iraq. He is wrong. It does not. But Iraq is one front in the war on terror. And despite what Bush haters say, we are in a war against Islamic extremists who want to destroy America and kill you and your family.

But that war has many fronts. We face threats from Iran, who‘s been at the epicenter of world terrorism since ‘79, from Afghanistan, where the Taliban is gaining strength and being given safe haven, from Pakistan, where Islamic extremists sympathetic to bin Laden are more likely than not to gain control of nuclear weapons within the next five years. And yet Mr. Bush and the Republican Party can only focus on Iraq, Iraq and Iraq.

You know, that strategy is the foolhardy equivalent of Dwight Eisenhower deciding that he was going to move all of our troops into North Africa in 1942 and either win or lose World War II on that front, regardless of the realities across Europe and the rest of the world.

Now, Republicans need to wake up and realize we are fighting a war against terrorism, not just a war against terrorists in Iraq. And we can‘t win that battle right now so long as Sunnis are blowing up Shiites, Shiites are blowing up Sunnis and both are blowing up each other. It is time to redeploy or troops to other fronts where U.S. power and might can make a difference. And right now, that place is not Iraq and Iraq alone.

Pat, we talked this morning about how the situation in Iraq keeps getting worse, and yet it seems like politicians in Washington, D.C., have their feet planted in cement and can‘t face the realities on ground, across the region and across the world. What are we going to do?

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think what the politicians in Washington fear, Joe, is if they follow their convictions and vote to defund the war, the disaster in Iraq will become a calamity. But as we talked this morning, there‘s a lot of time bombs ticking. Olmert in Israel is going be, I believe, pitched out. His likely successor, Mr. Netanyahu, will do his best to engage Iran and to engage the United States in a war with Iran. Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan is really on the ropes politically. If he goes down, you‘ve got an Islamic republic with nuclear weapons. Karzai—he is the mayor of Kabul. The Taliban is making a comeback. In what Brzezinski calls the “arc of crisis,” Joe, nothing really seems to be going well.

SCARBOROUGH: And Pat, you know, you talked about some very interesting things. You talked about what was going on in Israel. You talked about a coming war with Iran, between Israel and Iran. It probably is going to happen. The United States is going to be dragged into that. You talked about Pakistan, what‘s happening there. You talked about Afghanistan.

BUCHANAN: Pakistan‘s the most dangerous county on earth.

SCARBOROUGH: Pat, you and I have been saying that for a long time. It is without a doubt the most dangerous country on earth. Even if Musharraf‘s not assassinated, he may be ridden out of town on a rail.

I want you to take a look, though—just today—this is the violence in Iraq just today, where we‘ve basically put all of our chips on the table. We moved into this one place in Iraq, while Pakistan, while Iran, while all the—I mean, it‘s amazing that all the troops, all of our investment—today, five Britons kidnapped from a government office. A minibus explosion killed 23, wounded 68. Pick-up truck explosion killed 17, wounded 55.

BUCHANAN: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: Forty were abducted at a fake checkpoint in Samarra. Of course, this past month, the deadliest month since November of 2004. Pat, we could put another 100,000 troops in Iraq, and Sunnis would keep blowing up Shia, Shia would keep blowing up Sunnis. Pat, why are we doing this?

BUCHANAN: Look, let me give you some numbers. We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We got commitments to fight all over the world on behalf of 50 or 60 countries. The United States is playing empire with a wonderful little army, but it is small, Joe. You can‘t do it. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!

SCARBOROUGH: That‘s another example of our politicians betraying the American people, not being grown-ups, Don Rumsfeld saying that he was going win wars on the cheap, that we‘re going to be able to cut the military...

BUCHANAN: They genuinely fear—I fear that this thing‘s going come down and it is going to be awful. And if I were up there, even though I would have voted against going to war, I would have a very tough time voting with Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan, who had the courage to go up there and vote with the Democrats to defund it because I fear what is going happen afterwards, Joe. I think when president says, You pull out, and this thing is coming down and it‘s going to spread all down the peninsula, he may be right.

[So, there ya have it – it is not in our interests to stay. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. But the fear of ending George W. Bush’s Iraq War and the bad things that will happen has paralyzed our “leaders,” for-lack-of-a-better-word! :p]

[Yes, things will be bad – better to face the bad stuff now than another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years down the road when things will be worse and we will be weaker.]

Post #87

Subject: Terror threat level should be red….

What does the Department of Homeland Security do?

A man infected with a particularly tough strain of TB got on an airplane at an American airport and flew. We knew who he was. But he had to turn himself in before the threat was over.

Suppose this had of been an unidentified terrorist? The most non-reassuring comment I heard was from a government official who said that we had no plan to deal with this threat.

Foolishly, I thought the Department of Homeland Security identified terrorist threats and planned on how to deal with them.

Post #86

Subject: Are ya scared yet?

"Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," George W. Bush said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."

In a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this past Wednesday, Bush asserted that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets. He stressed that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists.

Who is this bin Laden fellow, and why haven’t we gotten him? :p

Wait – is Bush talking about the 9/11 bin Laden? The man who has been marginalized, the man who is dying of kidney disease, the man who has been smoked out and gotten on the run – that bin Laden? The bin Laden of Al-Qaeda?

“Al-Qaeda has expanded in organization and capabilities,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before Senate Appropriations Committee on May 8, adding that it “reestablished itself in western Pakistan [and is] training new recruits.”

"Bin Laden is using Iraq to kill and demonize the United States while remaining secure and planning further operations in Pakistan," said Rand Beers, national security adviser to John Kerry's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign.

Then, why are we in Iraq?

Beers contended that the Bush administration was releasing intelligence to buttress the argument that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism while a number of intelligence sources say the most recent attacks or planned attacks against the U.S. and its allies have originated in Pakistan instead.

Bush said that while the Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001, Americans still face a major threat from terrorists. "In the minds of al-Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down payment on violence yet to come…. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America, … Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny,'"

A war of destiny, U.S. troops are in the middle of fights among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Gawd help us all.

"As global terror threats remain very real, President Bush is sinking more money and sending more troops to referee Iraq's civil war, when those precious resources would be better spent in finishing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress think tank.

Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, said, “I think that they [Bushies] thought this would be a quick, you know, easy joy ride through Iraq, get rid of this thug, Saddam Hussein, and be home by Christmas in 2003. And then like kids playing with matches, it blew up in their faces, and ever since, they‘ve been retrofitting rationales for it.”

So, it boils down – are ya safer now than in 2002? Do ya support Bush’s Iraq folly with its ever-changing rationale, or do ya think the next President needs to do a better job identifying our enemy and determining our national interests?

Yes, I’m scared!

Post #85

Subject: VoteVets.org, Pt. II

… from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” May 10, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

OLBERMANN: From Eric Shinseki, the four-star general who was criticized by, of all people, Paul Wolfowitz when he said at the start that the war would require several hundred thousand troops, do these ads that you and General Eaton and General Clark have done for VoteVets.org, there seemingly has never been this much public friction between the military and the civilian leaders. What moved you to make these ads and moved you to make them now?

BATISTE: Keith, it really is quite extraordinary. I was moved to make this ad working with VoteVets because I care about our country, and I care about our soldiers and Marines and their families.

I‘m a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. [And neither is this blog. I think war can be justified and is appropriate under some circumstances. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is undeclared wars which give us trouble. There’s a lesson there.]

We‘re focused on what‘s best for this country. We‘re focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we‘re damn sure focused on doing what‘s right for our great military. [America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]

OLBERMANN: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?

BATISTE: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq. [Poor execution of a bad offense. “The best defense is a good offense” – a bad offense leaves us bare.]

Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies. [George W. Bush is focused on getting the military to do all the heavy lifting – the military should not be asked to do it all. Perhaps Bush has an inflated view of the military from his service in the Texas Air National Guard! :p]

It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time. [In other words, soldiers are dying in vain. Yes, Bush’s dream – “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” -- cannot be accomplished by the military alone. But a positive outcome is still possible – Bush will not or cannot provide the leadership necessary. And soldiers are dying in vain.]

If we don‘t get this right, we‘re going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that‘s the last thing we can do.

OLBERMANN: General, are you encouraged, are you disinterested in, are you interested in what happened Tuesday at the White House between these 11 moderate Republicans and the president, and this discussion of the political implications of this? Do you see this as some sort of watershed moment?

BATISTE: Keith, I think so. Four of the 11 congressman were members that the VoteVet ad is targeting. I think that speaks volumes.

Post #84

Subject: VoteVets.org

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18592759/site/newsweek/

May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan, ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.

No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.

The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."

The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals—he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton—is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time—saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq."

Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities—that's in the plural—that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible—and I used that word advisedly—that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy."

Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. … It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now."

Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away—even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book."

The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations—rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons…" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell.

The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.)

Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign à la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.)

Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it—not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict—and the way America wages future wars—may depend on it.

Post #83

Subject: A secret unauthorized leak of the advance copy of Gen. Petraues‘ September report

No, not really. I do not have friends in high places or low places. But I do know what Gen. David Petraues will say: “The surge is working. We have made progress. We have not made enough progress to leave, but we have made enough progress to justify staying.”

Bill Bennett would not bet against my tea leave reading! :p

Of course, Petraues will hit all the high spots in defending George W. Bush’s folly – Bush said, “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” But Petraues will duck the crucial question: Of Bush’s stated goals, which one(s) is/are an appropriate use of our military?

Bush just wants to leave office with troops in Iraq. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, I think it‘s important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved, and when they would be withdrawn. Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activity.” And he’s relying on Petraues to give him cover.

Bush wants to prolong the war – he can’t admit that he made a mistake. And our military is paying the price. He took us to war unnecessarily – Iraq did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq – Bush did not plan to fail; he failed to plan. He took us to war without enough troops and without the right equipment for the troops we did send or the proper care for those who came home wounded.

Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Can ya say Greensburg, Kansas?

Bush has declared war against his own – our – Army. And he claims that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Doesn’t Bush realize that emboldening the enemy is the one mission his failed policy has accomplished?

Aaahhh – but we are fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers – a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD. A New Jersey store clerk noticed the suspicious video. Um, what does Bush’s criminal crime-fighting powers have to do with this? More importantly, why didn’t the surge in Baghdad stop this?

Petraues knows….

Post #82

Subject: Jihad Joe vs. Afghan Ali

"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"

John Edwards, former Senator and current Democratic Presidential hopeful, wants to know. He submitted that question for the GOP Presidential debate last night -- about a third of the debate questions were from submissions to Politico.com. Take away the verbosity [!?!] and you have the whole Iraq war boiled down: “… a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or… we need a broader approach?”

Who are we fighting? On May 1 – a day that will live in infamy, George W. Bush said “It‘s true that not everyone taking instant life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home, but many do.”

So, does Jihad Joe who wants to blow up the Baghdad Babes, uh, Adult Entertainment Club deserve the same military approach as Afghan Ali who wants to fly a plane into the White House?

Bush also said, “Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.”

Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”

Of course, the whole neo-con world view Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”

From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”

Bush continued, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.”

Who? Jihad Joe or Afghan Ali? Does it make sense to spend blood and treasure fighting Joe at the expense of Ali? All I heard at the debate was that we needed to swing bigger – nobody said ”smarter.” * sigh *

Post #81

Subject: Iraqis are in charge of our foreign policy! :p

… by George F. Will, Sunday, April 22, 2007. georgewill@washpost.com

* * *

Republican Presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin's Governor and four years (2001-05) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, says, regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to relegitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the United States would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenue, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.

* * *

So, in other words, our presence in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not us. We leave or impose the Biden plan. There’ll be no debate about our interests – the Iraqis will determine that.

Of course, that is better than letting Martians be in charge of our foreign policy – Post #74. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s main qualification in a “neutral observer” is a simple and unquestioning willingness to swallow “neo-con” garbage. At least, the Iraqis are not neutral.

America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.

We need to think ahead. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. That is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. The next President will have to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military.

Post #80

Subject: Who’ll stop the rain!?!

Creedence Clearwater Revival lyrics

Long as I remember the rain been comin down.
Clouds of mystry pourin confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. A nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible – “unwinnable,” and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says pollster Peter D. Hart. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out."

Yes, we do. We need to stop the bleeding for what is “unwinnable.” This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave active duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. George W. Bush's policies are literally driving out some of our best young officers. For every day we are in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited, how many of our best soldiers give up the military, how many Osamas do we inspire – all for what is “unwinnable?”

Indeed, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.

Bush claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would have to extend the tours of troops already in Iraq. Extending those tours, Bush said, "is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country." But yet the very next day, the administration announced it was extending the tours of every U.S. ground troop in Iraq by three months.

That kind of double-speak is so typical of what comes out of Bush, and we’re supposed to have confidence in that! Enough is enough.

Heard the singers playin, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together, tryin to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin, fallin on my ears.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the rain?

Post #79

Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p

The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.

Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.

"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.

Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."

Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.

Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *

Post #78

Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”

“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007

Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.

McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.

The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:

* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.

* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.

* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.

The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.

There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.

The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.

But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.

In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:

1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.

2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.

3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.

4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.

Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.

I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.

* * *

The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p

But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “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?

Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?

Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?

I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.

Post #77

Subject: A word about Virginia Tech

Events such as those yesterday lead to questions, questions for which there are no answers. Commit an act of kindness and dedicate it to Virginia Tech. Today, we are all Virginia Tech Hokies.

Post #76

Subject: A word about Don Imus

Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].

Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.

I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”

It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!

I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.

Post #75

Subject: A modest proposal

There is one word, a solution for all of our troubles in Iraq: VENEZUELA! https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html

“Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of ‘democratic socialism,’ which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples. “

Hugo Chavez is a bad man. He called George W. Bush “the devil.” He’s against globalization. And nothing screams international terrorism like “democratic socialism!” :p I’m sure our government can cherry-pick the evidence into scaring us all.

But why Venezuela? Oil. Hugo Chavez is sitting on a lot of oil. Our steady supply of oil can be from there if we invade. Certainly, military operations would be a lot easier against a close neighbor just across the Gulf of Mexico than half-a-world away.

And the Iraqis don’t appreciate us. I’m sure that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in Venezuela! :p

In my Post #74, I quoted “The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer: “But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality.” Uh, that is my whole point: In 2007, yes, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Our real enemy that has/is working on an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” is in Afghanistan not Iraq.

So, let’s refocus on Afghanistan and trade a steady supply of oil from Iraq for a steady supply of oil from Venezuela.

Post #74

Subject:: Martians are in charge of our foreign policy! :p

http://www.townhall.com/

“The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

[Also, point out to the Martian that Afghanistan – “a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure” – was the place where 9/11 came from. The Martian would not understand why we have not finished in Afghanistan.

[Also, point out to the Martian that the atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” will come from Afghanistan not Iraq. Osama loves us being in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death and giving him a recruiting poster. For every day America is in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited?]

If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. … But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the ``good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.

[Yes, the wise Martian would answer the question with a question. What is America’s interests? America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]

* * *

There were two points emphasized in the discussion forum for that column.

First, the Iraq war is/was about oil. Saddam was a threat because he sat on a lot of oil. There is no ideological struggle, no spreading of democracy. Bush says that he wants a government that can protect itself – what he really means is “protect our supply of oil.”

Second, we – probably – will have to return to protect our supply of oil. Our presence, our military presence, in the Middle East is required as long as Americans drive SUVs. The threat of terrorism takes a backseat to the threat of a cut-off of oil.

I say us returning is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. The next President will have to manage the aftermath. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military. Until then, let’s keep our focus on our real enemy that has an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush,” our enemy in Afghanistan not Iraq.

Post #73

Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.” Pt. II

I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p

Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said last week regarding John McCain’s view, “… that just today, the U.S. embassy put out an all-hands bulletin to its personnel inside the green zone. The green zone‘s that fortified part of central Baghdad, guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops, surrounded by 17-foot-high concrete blast walls. The new directive, all embassy personnel must wear flak jackets and helmets any time they‘re leaving any building inside the green zone. They‘re also not allowed to congregate by that palace pool, the site of some fairly raucous parties in recent years. And nonessential personnel are not even allowed inside the embassy compound. Why? Because insurgents have been pelting the green zone with literally dozens of rockets and mortars in recent days, and two Americans have been killed in the past week in these attacks. So people inside the green zone, inside supposedly the most secure part of Baghdad, don‘t feel much safer this week than they did last week.”

How many of those dead Americans would say the surge is working!?!

Retired general Barry McCaffrey, who was recently in there with General Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders, wrote “No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO,” nongovernmental organization individual, “nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi without heavily armed protection.”

Again, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said, “Conditions are Baghdad today are still pretty grim. There are certain places where things have improved. I will hand McCain and the administration that point. But by and large, the city is still incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous to foreigners and dangerous to Iraqis. I‘m in touch with Iraqis all the time. They‘re still living under an incredible climate of fear. They‘re still afraid to go out and about. They don‘t know whether the trip they‘re making to the market or the mosque or to work is going to be the last trip they ever make. So there‘s still a climate of fear. I don‘t think that the Iraqis would take the same sanguine view that Senator McCain has.

So, what’s going on? Why would McCain carry water for George W. Bush? Uh, politics, pure and simple, politics – McCain is not really carrying Bush’s water, tho. McCain is probably privately hoping that the surge fails and that the Democrats pull the plug. He can run for President, saying “if the surge had of been substantial and sustained, as I’d wanted. it would have worked – after all, I saw progress in early ’07.”

America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.

Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.

McCain’s interest = running for President.

Post #72

Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.”

I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. Of course, McCain also said, “General Petraeus goes out there [into Baghdad] almost every day in an unarmed HumVee.” McCain later omitted any claims about unarmed HumVees, saying that he meant that there are neighborhoods that are safe and that General Petraeus does go out into Baghdad.

It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p

That George W. Bush would paint the surge as a success is really no surprise. Do ya really think in, say, June that Bush would say “My fellow Americans, the surge has not worked – Americans have died in vain,” really? But what is surprising is how soon and how rah-rah the cheerleading is.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said before Congress that he was disturbed to hear one of his military officers say it will be fall before they have a good idea how well the latest Baghdad campaign is going. He said he hopes that Gen. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will be able to make that evaluation by summer.

But Bush needs somebody to blame for his own mess. The Senate passed a bill requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq.” In a 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. Po’ Mr. Bush – to be stuck holding the bag! Ya can kiss being baseball commissioner ‘bye. :p

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon -- yes, Mr. Smith, I haven’t forgotten my Post # 45 – in voting for the measure. So, that is two Republicans who put America’s interests above Bush’s interests.

America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind.

Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.

Supporting Bush’s interests over America’s interests were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman who argued against a withdrawal timetable on the floor of the Senate, saying, "It is clear that for the first time in a long time, there is reason for cautious optimism about Iraq." For the first time!?! Haven’t you've been so optimistic before, Joe, telling us all about the great progress? Remember the 2006 campaign!?!

Aaahhh – carrying water!

Also, “Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way,” said Senator Richard Shelby, Republican, Alabama. Well, it might take the target off their back! :p

Look, seriously, what are going to do if our military is needed elsewhere tomorrow? 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 can carry his own water. “The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington.

Somebody please tell Bush that the Iraq war – after we didn’t find WMD and after we overthrew Saddam, our military objectives – has been disastrous. And that continuing to flounder will be even more disastrous by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, our real enemy in Afghanistan as we continue to bleed in Iraq.

"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, start providing vital funds for our troops and get a bill to my desk that I can sign into law," Bush said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." Yes, Bush is at fault for a war that is, as Pat Buchanan said in my Post #67, “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.”

Post #71

Subject: Fwd: “Let's say I break into your house.”

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house) .

According to the protesters: You are Required to let me stay in your house. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan. You are Required to Educate my kids. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.

I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for . . . Well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of showing cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?!

* * *

OK, I included the above from my e-box as it made me really think about immigration.

Let’s continue the “house” metaphor. I break into your house and find 20 other people who broke into your house and live there. “But Mr. John Smith,” you say, ‘arrived at Ellis Island from England in 1902, and he’s been a good citizen ever since.” And you want me to play by the rules, right?

Well, Mr. John Smith is really John Blacksmith – and really old, by the way :p – and Jack the Ripper. When immigrants used to arrive in this country, there were no rules – immigrants gave whatever name they wanted and didn’t worry about background checks And how many stories have you heard Italian grandmothers who refuse to learn English? It’s a Hollywood staple.

But, yes, times have changed. Because of the threat of terrorism, I’d like to see every immigrant documented but none who contributing members of society deported. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses….”

Still a problem? Don’t cry to me when some Native-Americans want to evict you! :p

Post #70

Subject: Patience is a virtue, Pt.. II

As I said in my Post #69, “I don’t know what to be patient about.” Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means. Since George W. Bush can not define “winning,” I’m thinking like Joe Biden – “winning” is “ending this war without leaving chaos behind.”

As I said in my Post #69, “Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you [Bush] have failed as a war leader.” The binding bill requires that the President:

1. Transition our forces now to a new, more limited mission of training Iraqis and denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Um, that’s Al-Qaeda, Mr. Bush – remember them? They fly planes into buildings. They are also already in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2. Begin the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq within four month.
3. Complete the withdrawal of our combat forces by March, 2008, except for a limited number necessary to carry out the limited mission.

You, Mr. President, George W. Bush, have no clue. Your indignation over the House bill passed today just shows that you have not even read the bill. Your catch phrases, your slogans, your inability to define what we are fighting for or even who we are fighting, you and your Iraq war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. No, sir, I have no more patience.

Post #69

Subject: Patience is a virtue

I am sorry, Mr. President, George W. Bush, I have no more patience. Oh, I know you haven’t asked anything of me except patience. There have been no calls from the White House to grow Victory Gardens. There has been no overtime for factories that build HumVees. No rationing gas, no ban on overseas travel, no draft. But four years is enough.

Why, then, am I out of patience? It’s simple really: I don’t know what to be patient about. Like most Americans, I want to “win” – please tell me, tho, what “winning” means.

When Berlin fell, I knew we had beaten Germany in WW II. Japan signed a surrender. Even the Cold War was based on the idea of the Soviet Union ending. Um, Iraq?

Senator Jos Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have offered legislation to repeal the 2002 “blank check” and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq. Visit http://www.EndingTheWar.com and read the bill. Maybe then you’ll understand why you have failed as a war leader.

Joe Biden said in an e-mail, “Just as important, as we transition the mission and draw down our forces, our bill requires the President to pursue a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq to secure a political settlement. That's exactly what the Biden-Gelb plan offers.” http://www.PlanForIraq.com “In short, what I'm proposing is a plan to end the war in Iraq without leaving a mess behind. What the President proposes is no end in sight.”

You want patience… for what, Mr. Bush, for what? I’d be willing to forgive the sneaky way you got us into this mess and the ways you’ve mishandle nearly every step along the way, if only….

Post #68

Subject: The classic errors

I ran across a blog post entitled “DON’T STOP THE WAR!” If I may -- my responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

Why would we want to stop this war?
(1) We're winning

[And how do you define “winning?” Killing more enemy troops – combatants? guerillas? – than losing our own? That was a mistake in Vietnam and is a mistake in Iraq today. Remember the body counts of Vietnam and how we were constantly being told we were turning the corner because we were killing more than were being killed? We killed over a million North Vietnamese – over 20 times what we lost – but did not win that war. Unfortunately, George W. Bush seems to not understand that, for every Iraqi he kills, there are two more who were originally supporters of democracy who are now jihadists and willing to fly planes into buildings.]

(2) It's the right thing to do

Most importantly: the only thing that "anti-war" protesting at home does is KILLS OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD. I remember the news reports in 1991 and all the networks talking about how we were "fighting for oil." I remember how it made us feel knowing that there were people at home who did not appreciate the blood we were expecting to shed.

[I hate to sound like a smart-ass, but, really, how does that work? I hear it all the time. If you are on patrol in Baghdad and you come under attack, how does Dan Rather make your gun not shoot straight? If you are wounded, will the Army doctor not work hard on you because his daughter is home in college makin’ love not war!?! :p]

… I've shed blood to fight this evil. Don't lessen my sacrafice. You don't have to agree with everything Bush & Co. do, I certainly don't, but don't let them do to this generation what they did to mine in 1991 -- pull out before the job is finished, ensuring that our enemy will live to once again terrorize the innocent.

[Uh, your mission was accomplished in ’91. – take pride in that. But, after the higher-ups in the Pentagon concluded that Vietnam was lost, how did sending over 20,000 more troops to their deaths lesson the sacrifice of those who had already died? In my Post #65, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, “And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests – just like in ‘91. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests – that is why I say Bush’s “New Way Forward” is nothing short of murderous.]

(3) Our enemy isn't about to stop until he's dead

… This war isn't going to end even when we're finished in Iraq. This is a battle for the survival of Western civilization.

[Yes, 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. Killing Arabs on TV is not helping – indeed, we are breeding new terrorists.]

I am a US Marine veteran. I have been to Iraq (1991), I have met the enemy, and I am very much aware that he cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be bribed or bought off, and he will never, ever stop killing innocent people until he is dead. The minute we surrender to terrorism in Iraq, they will return this war to OUR shores and start bombing OUR schools, OUR churches and shopping malls and killing OUR people.

[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 as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder. 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.” Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” “the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”]

You can't "stop" the war BECAUSE THE ENEMY HASN'T QUIT. Jane Fonda thought she could do that in 1968 when America was about to achieve a military victory, and because of her THOUSANDS of American servicemen were killed or wounded by an enemy which gained renewed morale after her visit to North Vietnam.

[I wasn’t aware Jane Fonda was a General who followed political orders to send troops into combat. :p Why don’t you blame those really at fault for Vietnam – Johnson who turned Vietnam into a quagmire and Nixon who couldn’t admit the defeat that was handed to him. The Iraq War itself, Bush’s Vietnam, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real 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.]

Post #67

Subject: Hypocrisy….

Good Lord. We have a new winner in the “hypocrisy sweepstakes.” Just when I thought it was safe to read some right-wing nuts, I run across “Martyr of the War Party “ by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , March 7, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.

A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.

Yet, this was a narrow case. Libby's convictions call to mind Martha Stewart's, who went to prison for lying to investigators about a crime she did not commit. Libby has been convicted of lying about the outing of a CIA classified officer, a crime for which no one has been indicted.

Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was outed as a CIA "operative," was no longer covert and had not been so for half a decade when her name was pushed out of the White House to the press. Joe Wilson, her husband, target of the White House vendetta, yet contends that not only was her career destroyed, a crime was committed -- and that is why the CIA demanded an investigation.

Yet it was an arrogant and stupid thing Libby did. He lied to the FBI, to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to the grand jury. He fabricated a story about where he learned about Wilson's wife, when, as sworn testimony proved, he learned it from Vice President Cheney and was himself moving it to the press.

[The rule of law, Pat, the rule of law – that’s how they got Clinton. Getting a “Monica” from Monica was not a crime, but he lied about it. And he was impeached. No sob stories from the right about the “human tragedy.” What goes around, comes around. I knew one day the right would get caught by their own stringent attitude – well, judgment day is here, Pat, and you have plainly showed that the law you respect only applies to the other side. I’m disappointed.]

However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program.

That larger issue is this: Were we misled, were we deceived by our government, as the White House made the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Did neoconservatives at the Pentagon cherry-pick the intelligence, stovepipe it to the vice president's office and Libby, and then feed it to sympathizers and collaborators in the media, to stampede our country into a war against a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us?

In short, were we lied into a war in Mesopotamia that is breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam?

And why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?

This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.

The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war.

And, lest we forget, the media, too, played a supporting role in pushing this nation into an unnecessary war. Columnists and commentators assured us there was a nexus between Saddam, al-Qaida and 9-11, a "Prague connection" between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. We were told Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was working on nuclear weapons, that enrichment of uranium was being done secretly around the country, that if we did not act now, we faced a nuclear-armed Iraq that would surely transfer atomic weapons to al-Qaida terrorists. Said Condi Rice, our proof of WMD might well come in the form of a mushroom cloud above an American city.

[George W. Bush was speeding, and the cops let him go. Bush had a wreck. Yes, the cops get fired. But the responsibility for the wreck belongs to Bush. I find it sad that any Senator who voted for this mess is still in office, and I raise my eyebrows over who is running for President. But, at the end of day, Bush is at fault for a war that is “breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam.]

Scooter Libby will not lack for legal defense funds as he pursues his appeal, and there will be demands for his pardon before Bush goes home. For Scooter is a martyr of the War Party. Scooter did what he had to do to get us into this war. Then he did what he felt he had to do to discredit Joe Wilson, because Wilson was out to discredit the White House case for war. And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war. For that record is sealed in minds and souls.

[Yes, we are unlikely to know. Let’s get out – with a positive ending, if we can. But let’s get out.]

Post #66

Subject: Repeal Iraq War Resolution

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The text below is from The Boston Globe.

* * *

Congress Should Repeal its Authorization to Use Force in Iraq

February 27, 2007

Two weeks ago, Congress made clear its opposition to President Bush's plan to send more US troops to Iraq.

Opposing the surge is only a first step. There needs to be a radical change in course in Iraq. The pressure is building on Congress -- especially Republicans -- to act if the president will not.

The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted Bush in 2002 to use force in Iraq.

We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. We should set as a goal removing from Iraq all US combat forces not necessary for this limited mission by early 2008, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommends.

Congress also should make clear that the troops should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a civil war.

Repealing and replacing the 2002 authorization is not micromanagement from Washington, it is matching our soldiers' mission to the changing realities in Iraq.

Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"

Everyone wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon and as safely as possible. There is great political reward in saying, "I can get us out the fastest."

But while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. There needs to be a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East.

Nine months ago, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and I proposed a plan, which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact.

The plan would decentralize Iraq and give Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives; bring the Sunnis in by guaranteeing them a fair share of the oil; enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and the world's major powers to promote the plan with the Iraqis; and withdraw US combat forces by 2008. You can read the details at PlanForIraq.com.

The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.

Since the onset of sectarian war, there is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. There is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon.

There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: A foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon.

That leaves federalism -- an idea a majority of Iraqis have already endorsed in their constitution.

Our plan offers a way to make federalism work for all Iraqis. And it offers the possibility -- not the guarantee -- of producing a soft landing in Iraq. That would be the best possible outcome for Iraq and for America.

Post #65

Subject: The immorality of the Iraq War….

In my Post #62, I quoted Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show. I think his whole quote is telling – especially from the right – and worthy of a whole post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Well, I‘ll tell you what. I‘ll tell you where I am right now on this war. I supported the war from the very beginning. Anybody that has watched this show for four years knows I was one of the biggest supporters of the war. And I was a big supporter for the war because it came about a year after the 9/11 attacks. We had our CIA director, everybody else, said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were all wrong. I wanted to go into Iraq because I believed at the time it was in America‘s best interests.

[Yep, George W. Bush pissed on your leg and said that it was raining! :p Actually, I respect that you were scared shitless – I was, too. Shame on Bush for his disregard of the truth, the whole truth, and his “New Way Forward,” an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President.]

That‘s all I cared about. I didn‘t care about world peace. I didn‘t care about spreading democracy across the globe. I wanted to protect America. At some point, you‘ve got to say what‘s in America‘s best interests, after we found out that Saddam Hussein didn‘t have nukes, and now that there‘s no Saddam Hussein—at some point, you have to start asking, When is your neighbor going to step up to the plate? When are they going to take care of the mess in their own yard, in their own back yard?

[We created that mess. But you are correct, Joe: At some point, you throw up your hands and just leave. Intellectually, I agree with Joe Biden in my Post #62 and #64 – we must do the hard work to get a positive outcome in Iraq. But, emotionally, I’m ready to face the bad consequences – the Iraq civil war that spreads across the Middle East, a cut off of oil, Iran armed with an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush.” The longer we stay, the worse things will be when we do leave.]

How many more young Americans from California, from Kansas, from Georgia, from Maine, have to die because Iraqis, as Pat Buchanan said, who were willing to have 500,000 of their own people slaughtered in a war against Iran, or the Afghanistan people, who stood up to the Soviet Union for almost a decade—how much longer do Americans put everything they have, give up their young, give up billions of dollars, soon to be trillions of dollars, for countries that just don‘t seem to want democracy and freedom enough to actually fight for them themselves?

That‘s a question that most Americans are finding themselves asking. And at some point, we‘ve got to say, Enough is enough. I agree with Arianna Huffington. You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.

[The sad thing is that we have already won: We achieved our military objectives to protect America’s interests. Now, we are bleeding to death for the honor and glory of Bush’s “utopian” dream, not America’s interests.]

Post #64

Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests, Pt. II

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech before the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, advocating revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. Senator Biden also said that although leaving Iraq is necessary, we should also focus on what we leave behind. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.

Remarks prepared for delivery. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

"Iraq's Future and America's Interests"

The Brookings Institution

February 15, 2007

This military surge in Iraq is not a solution - it is a tragic mistake.

If we should be surging forces anywhere, it is in Afghanistan.

I'm glad the President has recognized what many of us have been saying for years: unless we surge troops, hardware, money, and high-level attention into Afghanistan, it will fall back into the hands of the Taliban, terrorists and drug traffickers. I support the steps he announced today but I hope they are the first steps - not the last - in a recommitment to Afghanistan.

[Michael Scheuer, former head, CIA Bin Laden Unit, said on “Countdown,” the central place in terms of an attack inside the United States is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When the next attack occurs in America, it will be planned and orchestrated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda values Iraq primarily for the entree it gives them into Jordan, into Syria, into the Arab peninsula, and into Turkey. … But actually, the people who will plan the next attack in the United States are those who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]

We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.

The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.

[Yes, for God’s sake, somebody tell us what we are doing in Iraq! 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.”]

For our sake and for the sake of the Iraqi people, we should be focused on how we get out of Iraq with our interests intact.

Everyone wants to bring our troops home as soon and as safely as possible. But tempting as it is, we can't just throw up our hands, blame the President for misusing the authority we gave him, and walk away without a plan for what we leave behind.

So I'll end where I began.

Leaving Iraq is a necessity, but it is not a plan. We need a plan for what we leave behind. That is what I have offered.

Post #63

Subject: Re: Happy B'Day

... where does time go? Twenty years ago, something new and exciting happened to me nearly every day. Now, it's just a new ache and pain every day! The only bright side of turning 42 – yesterday, by the way, I be eligible to be President! :p

Post #62

Subject: Iraq's Future and America's Interests

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech before the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, advocating revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. Senator Biden also said that although leaving Iraq is necessary, we should also focus on what we leave behind. The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history.

Remarks prepared for delivery. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

"Iraq's Future and America's Interests"

The Brookings Institution

February 15, 2007

This is a time of tremendous challenge for America in the world.

We must contend with the on-going war in Afghanistan, the genocide in Darfur, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the rise of China and re-emergence Russia, the growing insecurity of our energy supply, the fragility of our climate, and the threat posed by radical fundamentalism.

[Yes, we continue to bleed in Iraq, 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. It is no wonder that Osama wants us to stay in Iraq, bleeding and taking our eyes off him.]

But one issue dominates our national debate: Iraq.

If we deal with it successfully, we can recover the freedom, flexibility nd credibility to meet these other challenges

Listen to the debate about Iraq here in Washington. It centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice: Do we continue on President Bush's failing course and hand off Iraq to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?

[The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, George W. Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. We can still get a positive outcome. But only if Bush shows some leadership and gives up his “utopian” dream.]

[I find or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. So does MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on his show, “Enough is enough. … You know, if you look at the number of Americans who died after the Tet offensive in 1968, it‘s just—at some point, it becomes immoral continuing in a war that you know your country can‘t win.” 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.]

[Let’s just declare victory and come home. 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.” Since no one seems to be interested in doing the hard work to get a positive ending in Iraq – indeed, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President, I think we ought to get out… now!]

I believe there is a better choice. It is still possible to bring our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos that engulfs Iraq and spreads to the Middle East.

That must be our goal.

Leaving Iraq is necessary -- but it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind.

Nine months ago, with Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, I proposed just such a plan. Go to "PlanForIraq.com." to read its details.

Our plan recognizes that there is no purely military exit strategy from Iraq. Instead, we set out a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq -- one that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and offers us a chance to leave with our interests intact.

Post #61

Subject: What is our mission?

I’m not trying to be a smart-ass – just a befuddled average American. But why are our troops being slaughtered in Iraq?

It seems that the Republican argument against even discussing our strategy in Iraq boils down to “A public debate will hurt morale and make it harder to accomplish our mission.” Well, the first part – “morale” – has no meaning. Will bad morale make a gun not shoot straight? But it is that second part – “mission” – which has my concern.

When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1 – to hunt down, capture and destroy WMD. Well, #1 was not necessary – as I believed, the first time we were wrong has limited our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other hunts which might even be more necessary. Can ya say Iran?

Indeed, George W. Bush: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not buying your tales about Iran. If Iran is a threat, handle it – beating the drums in public is unseemly, politely-speaking.

When we went into Iraq, our mission was #1a – to remove Saddam from power. And #1a was accomplished -- we “got” Saddam. As I said in my Post #3, but didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag?

In my Post #13, I quoted Bush, “We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”

In last weeks press conference, Bush did not mention democracy – only that we were fighting extremists. Are they the terrorists who fly planes into buildings? From my Post #22, we cannot defeat our enemy if we do not know who the enemy is. I quote from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006. “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.

What is our mission?