Post #152

Subject: Quit, Obama, Quit

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that Barack Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November. ”We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Oh, wait – Dean really said that either Hillary Clinton or Obama must quit after the primaries.

Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. "We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards," Dean said. "So we'll know who the nominee is and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Senator McCain."

There’ll be no division – Obama will do the right thing and quit. There are nine primaries left, and Clinton leads the popular vote. Who is prepared to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election?

Let’s suppose Obama whines about Michigan. I say let’s have a one-day national primary, a re-vote. I wonder how many votes would switch today. And, Goodness, have a state-by-state, winner-take-all count that mimics the November election.

This is where the superdelegates come in. It is their responsibility to dismiss a candidate who has fatally wounded himself. The only division will come from Obama’s ego if he refuses to read the handwriting on the wall.

Clinton leads McCain by 9 in a poll released today while Obama and McCain were tied. Save us, superdelegates!

Post #151

Subject: John McCain and his 99-year war

It is not important that John McCain will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years if they are not taking casualties. What is important is how many years McCain will keep our troops there if they are taking casualties. Five years? 10? 20? 50? 99?

We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror.

How long will McCain continue to squander blood and treasure for no strategic gain? Indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats and have provided Al-Qaeda with a recruiting poster.

Do not look for an answer from “Mr. Straight-Talk” BEYOND “we’ll be there as long as it takes to get the job done.” He will not define “job” in a way that applies to a military mission – a favorite tactic of George W. Bush.

To do so, to define the “job” as something the military can do – such as ‘getting’ Saddam, hunting down and destroying terrorist training camps and toppling governments that harbor ‘em, would be to acknowledge that the “job” is perpetual war. And that is fighting terrorism how?

Osama bin Laden, in a videotape released on the eve of the ‘04 election, said that his intention was to bankrupt America. Bin Laden cited the example of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where a guerrilla war of 10 years forced a bankrupt Soviet Union to withdraw and collapse. How much closer are we to achieving the goal of bin Laden?

McCain warns about the consequences of leaving, but what about the consequences of staying? At what point will McCain say “enough is enough?” How many more lives will be sacrificed? How many more billions? Will it take a terrorist attack here at home for McCain to realize that Iraq is not the place he needs to hang tough?

My fear is that we’ll end up like Russia, a second-rate power with a lot of nuclear weapons we can’t afford to secure.

Post #150

Subject: open mouth, insert feet, Pt. II

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004

“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin

THE GOP SEES AN OPENING

Hillary got some help from the Republicans who decided that it was time to rough up the rookie candidate. (Whether the McCain team believes that Obama can be dislodged from the lead in favor of Hillary - who now trails John McCain in polls across the board - or whether they hope he can be bloodied before stumbling to the nomination, …

[Of course, John McCain wants a black as an opponent – appeals to racism can play to some %80 of voters whereas appeals to sexism can play to only some %50 of voters. Of course, too, McCain wants a bloodied opponent – and Barack Obama keeps doing it to himself.]

.... they were not about to miss this opportunity.) McCain’s communications director cut to the chase:

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.’

Karl Rove predicted the mega-gaffe would doom Obama’s chances in Pennsylvania and Americans for Tax Reform’s, Grover Norquist went further, declaring it would cost him the election.

Robert Gleason, head of the Pennsylvania GOP remarked that this would raise “even more questions” about Obama’s values and observed:

"The vast majority of Pennsylvanians believe wholeheartedly in their Constitutional right to bear arms, have a strong devotion to their faith, and believe that our government should be actively looking for a solution to the illegal immigration crisis, and Barack Obama managed to offend every single one of us with this one statement. With a diverse population, many with immigrant backgrounds, it is sad Obama wants to paint the Keystone State with this broad brush of ignorance."

[A sharp commenter [?] at another blog nailed Obama as an elitist BEFORE these latest comments back when he went bowling. Obama must have thought, the poster said, ‘if these ya-hoos can bowl, I can too.’ And, without a lesson, he made a fool of himself ]

Obama must be wondering, “Who would have thought that a bunch of bare footed, Bible thumping, know-nothings would take such offense?” Obama had slipped on the ice of his own condescension. Now the question is: can he recover?

He tried out a longwinded explanation Friday night in Indiana for why he believed the poor downtrodden of Middle America had no choice but to resort to firearms and faith to easy their economic pain, but somehow that did not seem to fly. He quickly detoured into insulting McCain. He tried again on Saturday to explain he had meant no disrespect, but there was no way to take the sting out of his own words. Reporters were left scratching their heads: did he really believe voters would not be insulted by his treatise on their political backwardness?

THE MEDIA DESCENDS

Even the usually solicitous MSM spotted this as a gigantic problem for their beloved candidate. One MSNC analyst put it: “Regardless of what he really meant by it, the idea that you're calling unemployed people bitter does not come off so good. I think that he's going to spend a lot of time on this between now and however long the election goes on.” Other pundits intoned: “It’s bad - and it drips condescension.”

You know things are not going well when Chris Matthews concedes “Nobody wants to be called ‘bitter.’” In short, this was a gaffe so bad that not even his media cheerleader could rescue him.

KEYSTONE IMPACT

Hick-gate may well halt Obama’s Keystone state progress in its tracks. Beginning with a double digit deficit in the Pennsylvania primary polls Obama had cut Clinton’s sixteen-point lead to mid-single digits. His enormous TV ad buy and the Clinton’s Three Stooges routine (Mark Penn, Bill and Hillary) had managed to fumble Hillary’s lead, tripping over free trade and repressed memories of Bosnia.

By Friday (before the effect of Hick-gate could register), Clinton’s lead in the Realclearpolitics.com average hovered just above seven points (but that included an outlying Survey USA poll which still showed her ahead by 18 points).

Now Clinton has her chance to short circuit Obama’s already anemic outreach to white working class voters. If not impressed with his “37” bowling score they likely won’t be thrilled to learn that he equates them with Lil Abner characters.

Before Friday some Pennsylvania voters might already have been worried about Obama’ outlook on America because of his long time association with the hate-mongering Reverend Wright. They might have even been irked after reading in Obama’s memoirs that he considers the country beset by racists around every corner and even in his own family.

Well now Hillary can fully exploit those suspicions that Obama is an elitist who looks down on his fellow citizens, regarding them as narrow-minded and foolish. She need not touch the remarks of Reverend Wright (and risk being labeled a race baiter herself): she now has Obama’s own words to work with.

What’s more, Obama’s somewhat ludicrous attempt to appeal to gun owners in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) is now likely kaput. They likely wouldn’t have fallen for it anyway. Contrary to his perception that they are dullards, these voters are smart enough to doubt the sincerity of a man who favored strict gun control as a state senator and failed to sign on to the Congressional friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hold the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.

IMPACT

Next week’s voting will reveal how deep Obama’s self-inflicted wound is. Should Hillary nab a comfortable win in Pennsylvania, any hopes of putting her out of the Democrats’ misery will vanish. All eyes will turn to the exit polls. If Obama has dug his own grave with working class white voters (the very segment that was fleeing his coalition in Texas and Ohio) the superdelegates will perk up. Then her dire warnings of impending doom for the Democratic Party with an Obama nominee might seem downright credible.

[Barak Obama has been judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character.]

And John McCain? He is living up to his self-described billing as the luckiest man alive.

Post #149

Subject: open mouth, insert feet

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004

“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin

Barack Obama broke the first rule of Democratic presidential politics: never let on that you believe rural American voters are hicks straight out of Deliverance. Unfortunately for The Chosen One’s adoring fans, he could not have picked a worse time to reveal his contempt for average Americans.

[“Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Unless Barack Obama believes that, he shouldn’t be President. Yes, that applies to all candidates.]

THE MOTHER OF ALL GAFFES

On Friday the usually Obamaphile Huffington Report turned the tables on him, breaking a story (complete with audio tape) that Obama had regaled a hoity-toity California fundraising audience with his thoughts on the rural folk of Pennsylvania. In remarks that his Left- wing Harvard professors would heartily endorse, he explained that the Californians should take pity on Pennsylvanians:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[In case Obama doesn’t get it, “bitter” is not offensive. What is offensive is the idea that “bitterness” can explain religious fervor. Did “bitterness” cause Obama to nod “Amen” to Reverend Wright for 20 years? There was no “bitterness” 50 years ago, how to explain those other ‘clings?’]

This was manna from political heaven for Hillary Clinton (who had spent most of Friday explaining a new set of fabrications from Bill about her brush with death in Bosnia) just as she was heading off into the political wilderness.

The Pennsylvania primary next week is do or die for Hillary. A loss or narrow win will send her packing; a comfortable victory will hush the hounds baying for her to leave the race. And for the campaign which could not shoot straight (or rather could not keep their shooting stories straight), the Clinton team finally had a clear shot at their target.

Even the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory could see this opening. Hillary charged out with comments at a campaign appearance chiding Mr. Hope for finding only bitterness in Pennsylvania. (“I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves.”) and then moved in for the kill:

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

The Clinton camp spent the remainder of the weekend pounding at Obama, Hillary personally whacking at him and surrogatees descending en masse to make certain the entire state knew they had been insulted.

[Not so bad for “the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory,” huh?]

Post #148

Subject: Joe Lieberman, another politician...

I’m no fool. I realize most politicians are the worst form of human scum, lyin’ cheatin’ bastards who’ll do anything to get elected. Sometimes, tho, I’ll run across one whom I think to be misguided but honest.

Joe Lieberman

Senator Lieberman's re-election campaign caused its own Web site to crash on the eve of the August 2006 Connecticut primary, federal investigators have found, not supporters of Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, whom Lieberman implied were responsible.

"In short, the server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured," according to an October 25, 2006, e-mail included in FBI documents obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. "There was no evidence of (an) attack."

That was some two weeks BEFORE the general election. Who in the Lieberman campaign knew about this – that is, the charge that their political opponent engaged in dirty tricks was false – BEFORE the election?

Lamont said Wednesday that Lieberman, a Democratic-leaning independent, should apologize.

"Senator Lieberman's campaign team accused an awful lot of good people of breaking the law on the eve of the primary, and they did it for political purposes," Lamont told the AP in a telephone interview. "If he does the right thing, he'll stand up and say, 'I was wrong."

Lieberman had implied that Lamont supporters had hacked the site, saying on primary day: "I'm concerned that our Web site is knocked out on the day of the primary, you'd assume it wasn't any casual observer."

His campaign asked the Justice Department to investigate; Lamont's campaign denied involvement.

A Lieberman spokesman said Wednesday that the Senator considered the case closed.

"We were told by our Web site administrator that there was clear evidence of an outside effort to disrupt our site, and that the administrator was so certain that the site had been attacked that he was willing to swear to it in a legal affidavit," Dan Gerstein said.

Not so fast. Joe Lieberman should apologize for the false accusations and for the time between when he first knew the accusations were false and now. It’s only decent.

And un-political….

Post #!47

Subject: … from Hot Air

An e-pal sent in “a discussion of the current presidential campaign's 'identity politics'... an excerpt from the discussion section after the post, which i find is usually as, or more, enlightening than blog posts themselves:

“The elitists and their candidates know nothing about America outside their Gulfstream ghettos and it is way too late for them to even start pretending that they do. All it does is to further insult us ‘great unwashed’ out here in ‘Jesusland.’

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/05/the-irony-of-identity-politics/

“Roses are red, Grasses are green; get off your ass and join the Marines!”

Racism was not a part of the ’08 campaign – ‘til Barak Obama made it so. He called for “understanding” of Reverend Wright – thereby exposing himself as a racist… or at least an apologist for racism. I can’t vote for that.

Of course, I can’t vote for the bankrupting of America either – which is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. [rolleyes]

Post #146

Subject: Exactly… Pt. II

Is America ready for a black President? Yes, we are.
Can America elect a black candidate for President who shares Dr. King’s faith in America’s ideals? Yes, we can.
Can America elect a racist? No, we can’t.

... from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918341/

Poll: Clinton leads Obama, McCain in key states
Primary vote between Democrats split sharply along racial lines

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinon leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important. The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent

Post #145

Subject: Exactly…

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/29/65423/4259

As a loyal and faithful Democratic voter for my whole life, I’ve always voted against racism. I am a member of the Democratic base, poor white trash. Now, I’m being asked by the Democratic Party to support a racist who is half-black – as tho that matters.

As I believe John F. Kennedy said, ‘sometimes, party loyalty asks too much.'

Post #144

Subject: Racism and Sexism and the GOP

Have ya heard that the Republican party is worried about charges of racism and sexism in the ’08 election? Supposedly, they are having focus groups and studies to show how to avoid those charges.

Are ya kidding me!?! I thought that appeals to racism and sexism were the whole Republican strategy for ’08. :p

By the numbers, some %80 of voters are vulnerable to racist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no black man.’ Some %50 of voters are vulnerable to sexist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no woman.’ Is it any wonder that Republicans are drooling to run against a black man?

Of course, Obama is not helping his case by appearing as a racist himself. It’s not a big leap in logic to think that, after 20 years of sitting in the pew of Reverend Wright spewing his racist garbage, a little bit of venom has rubbed off.

Oh, how the Republicans must be grinning – YouTube has freely provided all the campaign advertising needed for ’08, and John McCain will not have dirty his hands.

I’m telling ya: I’m NOT voting for a warmonger – I’m NOT voting for a racist. I’ll just sit out this year – and enjoy the talking heads trying to explain how a candidate who had delivered ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ lost. Are ya listening, Chris Matthews? You’ll blame Hillary – even tho Barack stepped on his own toes.

Oh, I know all about “black rage” – living in a fully integrated area and working for a predominately black company and having attended black churches. I feel qualified to spot a racist – and am insulted when I hear that I ‘just don’t get it.’

The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Reverend Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding” that I realized what I was dealing with.

Thank Goodness that Hillary is still in the race – providing an alternative….

I, for one, am sick and tired of calls for Hillary to quit – let all the votes count. Barack IS ahead, but ya don’t stop a football game at the end of the 3rd quarter. I think that some peeps are worried that Barack Obama can’t finish – well, he can’t. He’ll need some of those evil nasty superdelegates to clinch the nomination.

No wonder they want Hillary to quit.

Post #143

Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. III

The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Posts #141 and #142 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :P

Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:

“There is a strategy:

“Investigate the money trail blazed by Grover Norquist, Bush et al, multinationals, and defense contractors.

“1. Uncover where the billions have disappeared to, or to whom has been receiving kick-backs. In the real world, we call this embezzlement - it MUST be rampant there.

“2. The multinationals and defense contractor outfits that pulled the political puppets' strings for no-bid contracts, etc. - you COERCE these folks to REBUILD Iraq, since it was they - with the AEI "strategists" and the Bush White House cheerleaders; that brought war to common Iraqis and working class Americans.

“You LET them; with their RECORD profits pick up the tab.

“You let the multinationals that have hoarded money in off shore accounts (CitiBank, Banque Suisse, Deutsche Bank, etc. - the latter a preferred bank by the bin Laden family) pay the BILLIONS owed in CORPORATE TAXES to the USA -

“Gee - I think $63 Billion could be utilized to help our VETERANS - I think it could be utilized to help educate more Americans; I think it could be used to help insured American who lack health insurance; I think it could be utilized to off-set the mortage-loan-sharks that have helped evict American families out into the street!

“Read John Zdanowitz's (Florida International Univ.)work about profit laundering, tax evasion, etc. by these multinationals - read how the shell companies launder the profits they make to fund terror!

“Then - WHEN the MULTINATIONALS & DEFENSE CONTRACTORS do pay to rebuild Iraq - they employ IRAQI people to do the work so they can support their families; helping them establish a better, more normal life with security and basic necessities -

“If they were busy, being productive; having the necessities to help their families - they would NOT be as inclined engage in terror: their needs were being met. Read Mike Mazaar's article entitled " The Psychology of Terror" (Hoover Institute's Policy Review). Maazar is a professor at the Army War College.

“Yep. It's about time these MULTINATIONALS PAY for what they reap. It is they that wallow in the dividends - Lynn Cheney is on the BOARD at GENERAL DYNAMICS - gee - cozy, ethical, no-conflict of interest relationship with her war mongering husband and their fellow colleagues at American Enterprise Institute.”

“Seems to be a plan to perpetuate the gravy train for the"Military Industrial Complex" at the cost of many lives & increasing national debt.”

‘The US force size should be: no more than in Korea, paid for by Iraq, and be accompanied by a regional treaty similar to NATO or SEATO.”

“Bush and company misled the Congress” – the people’s representatives :p – “and we went into Iraq. Saddam was the objective then.” Only because the small minds in the White House bought the insane theories of Laurie MyLroie. “But the scenario has changed and so has the strategic goal. How we got there is not an excuse to run out.” How we got there IS important so that we can learn from our mistake – enough votes for an idiot so that he can “steal” an election. “The job that needs to be done is to crush the Islamic fundamentalist and radicals..The Dems need to wake up to the realities of the world. America needs to wake up to the threat that the House of Saud pose in the Wahabi version of Islam! “ And the reality is that Bush’s Iraq policy is NOT addressing Islamic fundamentalism and is making that movement grow. [rolleyes]

Post #142

Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. II

The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Post #141 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p

Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:

“A report of this on NPR called it a "treaty" with the Bush Administration going out of its way to avoid using the word "treaty". No wonder. A "treaty" requires Senate approval while bilateral agreements generally do not. This is symptomatic of this administrations' go-it-alone-I-know-whats-good-for-you philosophy. They readily violate the Constitute behind our backs and say the Constitute doesn't apply when they do it in front of our faces.”

“That is why the Democratic canditates are demanding that Bush not negotiate a permanent committment to keep our troops in Iraq during the rest of his tenure. No matter, he is going to do it anyway. That not the only matter that he will try to entangle us into before he leaves. How about permanent tax cuts for the rich, Continued survalence on citizens, renewing the Patriot Act. Bush, is going to use fear as a weapon to bludgen the Congress into going along with more funding for this stupid war and further eroding our Constitution rights. That is why I believe an impeachment trial should begin. That is the only way to corral this man.”

Yes, you’d think that President George W. Bush would stop pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining. But nobody has the courage to stop him – or even try. Bush is leading us down a road to ruin, and peeps seem content to follow. * sigh *

The truly sad thing is that Bush’s way – a disrespect for our Constitution, our people and way of life – is not the way to win the War on Terror. Bush just wants 10 more months without a homeland attack – he’ll call his time a “success,” damn the long-term consequences.

“AS LONG AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENSE IS IN IRAQ, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE SOLDIERS STAY IN BASE CAMPS OR IN CAVES, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE AND SUBJECT TO ATTACKS AND PROTESTS BY THE IRAQI PUBLIC. THERE IS NO IDEA OF HOW MANY US TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO STAY AND TRAIN THE IRAQI'S AND OF COURSE, WHAT WILL THE US TROOPS DO WHEN THEY COME UNDER ATTACK? YES I KNOW THEY WILL FIGHT BACK BUT WHERE, IN THE FIELD, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE? AS LONG AS AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE TO COMPLETE TOURS OD DUTY IN IRAQ, THIS WAR WILL NOT BE OVER AND OUR SOLDIERS' PRESENCE WILL CONSTANTLY REMIND THE IRAQI PEOPLE OF OUR INTERVENTION AND ONLY SEEM LIKE A PUPPETEER PULLING STRINGS AND STILL CONTROLING THEIR COUNTRY.”

“There will continue to be war and violence in Iraq until we're willing to confront the root cause of global jihadism, our wonderful "friends and allies," the Saudis:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/

"It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the hijackers on 9/11, and the vast majority of the fanatical suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq, all seem to be coming from the exact same place. Indeed, even now they are working steadfastly to undermine the gains we've recently made in Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?ref=middleeast

"And you can bet they continue to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, diligently spreading their Wahhabi crap. To cite but one telling example:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bhutto_remembered.html

"Until we open our eyes and confront the real enemy, we will not make one inch of real progress in the War on Terror.”

Post #141

Subject: An exit strategy without an exit

The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p

* * *

Nearly half a decade since the big bangs of "Shock and Awe," the United States and the Iraqi government are about to start writing a plan for U.S. forces to exit the war in Iraq, but not the country.

Senior U.S. and Iraqi officials will soon begin negotiating a strategic agreement to answer critical questions about the future role and commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The agreement, being tentatively called the U.S.-Iraq Friendship and Cooperation Agreement, could be the most important bilateral arrangement since the war, setting up U.S.-Iraqi relations for years, if not decades, to come.

American and Iraqi negotiators so far seem to have similar visions for the agreement. Both sides see a long-term U.S. military commitment to support, equip and train Iraqi forces.

On Thursday Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshar Zebari, one of Iraq’s four principal negotiators, told NBC News the agreement should be finished by July and calls for a new mission for U.S. troops.

"What kind of role does Iraq want the U.S. forces to play?" I asked.

"I think to continue the role of building, supporting and arming the Iraqi security forces, and also to provide support, let’s say, on request in the future because we want our forces to be self reliant to stand on their own," said Zebari. "We cannot continue to rely and depend on the U.S. support indefinitely. I think we can, and we know how, to defend ourselves and how to stand up provided we are given the means."

"So you would like U.S. forces to stay on bases to come out and provide support when they’re asked to do?" I asked.

"I think that’s the idea. Instead of carrying out these daily patrols, exposure, and combat missions, you see, this would be changed. And this is a plus really both for Iraqis and for the American soldiers," he said.

The timing is critical and somewhat controversial. Both U.S. and Iraqi negotiators want to finish the agreement while the Bush administration is still in office. It’s reasonable. They don’t want to start from square one with a new administration.

But critics say the Bush administration is trying to lock the United States into an open-ended military commitment in Iraq before leaving office.

On Thursday, Iraq was putting down markers. Zebari said Iraq wants the agreement to include:

- A U.S. commitment of military support and protection

- Clarification of the legal status of U.S. troops and private security contractors, including Blackwater USA, both currently immune from Iraqi prosecution

- A counter-terrorism partnership

- Continued U.S. training and supplies of military hardware

A senior American negotiator told NBC News that Washington wants the agreement to be flexible and said it will not include details about specific troop levels or permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

When I asked a senior Iraqi official if the agreement means there will be long-term American bases in Iraq, he said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."

* * *

Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:

“the empire is on it's last legs. it will end just like all the others.”

Ya been reading my blog? :p The decline-and-fall has been going on since 1950 and our involvement in the Korean, uh, Police Action – George W. Bush has only accelerated the coming end.

“This is all going to cost money. How are we going to pay for this? It would be a lot less expensive if we just got out, period. Ron Paul wants to get all of our troops off of foreign soil and put them to work protecting our borders. I think that is a much better idea.”

“What ever long term commitments the Bush Administration is trying to "Commit" us to, I hope the U.S. Congress and the new administration undoes and gets us out of there. The President can not sign accord with other nations without Congressional approval anyway. Then again, we've seen this president try and usurp the U.S. Constitution time and time again. I bet he wishes the U.S. were a Kingdom instead of a Democracy.”

King Weasel – has a nice ring to it, huh?

Post #140

Subject: Crimes Against the Constitution?

March 4, 2008 – Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures calling for the indictment of President George Weasel Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution. More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit the two towns or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.

The question put to voters referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations. I could list a few – beginning with the biggie of declaring war all by himself. No matter how much you scare Congress, the Constitution does not change.

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."

The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort. "It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."

Well, gee, Blair, I bet you’re fun at dinner parties. [rolleyes]

Post #139

Subject: George W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p

‘I totally screwed up – I listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But frat boys will be frat boys, buying the Nutty theories of Laurie MyLroie. If only I can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought President George W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain Wednesday.

"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president – somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.

‘That sounds good,’ probably thought Bush, ‘but I wonder what my speechwriters mean. What “tough decisions” did he make during the campaign that uniquely qualify him to be President? In my 2000 campaign, I made a big deal of my charming ignorance of foreign affairs, not even knowing the name of Korea’s leader. It’s not so charming now.’

‘My Dad said that McCain’s “character was forged in the crucible of war,”’ the Weasel probably thought. ‘What does “crucible” mean? And what does being a prisoner of war have to do with fighting terrorism from the White House? Tho, sometimes, I feel like a prisoner of war as if the Iraq War was somehow my fault.’

“A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said. "Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."

‘Ah-h-h, Cindy, the drug addict who had an interracial baby. I hope John don’t take a swing at me for the smears of 2000. I can take him,’ Bush probably thought, ‘but I gotta watch for that sucker punch. Maybe him keeping me waiting and tap dancing like a fool is all of his revenge for 2000,… the wimp.’

"They're not going to be voting for me, I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's not about me," Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Rating said. "I've done my bit. But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."

‘Ha Ha – how do you like my present, McCain’s War!?! Just do not expect too much from Crawford when you straight talk the American people about sacrifice, and I won’t mention your daughter.’

Post #138

Subject: William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVlMTE4MDk3NTAyNjAwMzM4NWM5NTI2ZDg4ODVlMTM=

February 27, 2008 1:00 PM

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

By the Editors

Our revered founder, William F. Buckley Jr., died in his study this morning.

If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country – and a better one – than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement. He kept it from drifting into the fever swamps. And he gave it a wit, style, and intelligence that earned the respect and friendship even of his adversaries. (To know Buckley was to be reminded that certain people have a talent for friendship.)

He inspired and incited three generations of conservatives, and counting. He retained his intellectual and literary vitality to the end; even in his final years he was capable of the arresting formulation, the unpredictable insight. He presided over NR even in his “retirement” which was more active than most people’s careers. It has been said that great men are rarely good men. Even more rarely are they sweet and merry, as Buckley was.

When Buckley started National Review – in 1955, at the age of 29 -- it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide. When Buckley wrote that the magazine would “stand athwart history yelling, Stop!” his point was to challenge the idea that history, with a capital H, pointed left. Mounting that challenge was the first step toward changing history’s direction. Which would come in due course.

Before he was a conservative, Buckley was devoted to his family and his Church. He is survived by his son Christopher and brothers Reid and James and sisters Priscilla, Carol, and Patricia. Our sadness for them, and for us, at his passing is leavened by the hope that he is now with his beloved wife, Patricia, who died last year.

Post #137

Subject: Why you lie, George Will?

… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

Regarding Iraq, Democrats have won a retrospective argument: Most Americans regret the invasion and execrate the bungled aftermath. But that will not enable the Democratic nominee to argue prospectively that what America's sacrifices have achieved should be put at risk by the essentially unconditional withdrawal of forces that both Democratic candidates promise.

[Both Democratic candidates have NOT promised “unconditional withdrawal” – essentially or otherwise.]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

"And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow
and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."

http://www.barakobama.com/issues/iraq/

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

[Both Democratic candidates are calling for a return to what has worked – a Clintonian containment. Shame on ya, George Will, for NOT being honest]

And the presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office.

[Um, ya mean the proper Constitutional role?]

Voters are not seething or even restive because U.S. forces have been in Japan and Germany for 63 years and in South Korea for 58.

[Well, obviously, Americans are not dying in those places as a civil war rages. It is a shame that you have to be intellectually dishonest.]

Post #136

Subject: Questions for John McCain… not relating to sex! :p

… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

The Presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office. John McCain's real vulnerabilities are related to four questions about Iran and one about Iraq. By answering all five he will reveal what constitutional limits -- if any -- he accepts on the powers of the Presidency regarding foreign and military policies.

First, he says war with Iran would be less dreadful than an Iran with nuclear arms. Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterable and not susceptible to long-term containment until internal dynamics alter the regime?

[Indeed, the Soviets had some, uh, Nutty leaders with their talk of burying us. Why is he so scared of Ahmadinejad? He is not the real ruler of Iran; he is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever – my Post #110.]

Second, many hundreds of bombing sorties -- serious warfare -- would be required to justify confidence that Iran's nuclear program had been incapacitated for the foreseeable future. Does McCain believe that a President is constitutionally empowered to launch such a protracted preventive war without congressional authorization?

[A bombing campaign will not be enough – we’ll need a full-scale invasion, a 1000 tanks with President McCain in the lead tank! :p]

Third, why would any president not repelling a sudden attack want to enter the pitch-black forest of war unaccompanied by the other political branch of government?

[Does the support of the other political branch of government have to be gotten honestly?]

Fourth, President George W.Bush has spoken of the importance of preventing Iran from having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Does McCain think it is feasible and imperative to prevent, or destroy, such "knowledge"?

[Bush: ‘knowledge is a bad thang!’ :p]

The fifth question concerns Iraq and Congress' constitutional role in the conduct of foreign policy. On Nov. 26, 2007, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship." Pursuant to this declaration, a status of forces agreement -- or perhaps something substantially more sweeping than such agreements often are -- is to be completed by July 31. The declaration says that the agreement will include "security assurances and commitments" requiring the United States to defend Iraq "against internal and external threats," and to "support" Iraq's attempts to "defeat and uproot" all "terrorist groups," including "al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups," and to "destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance."

In a Dec. 19 letter to the President, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said constitutional law and "over 200 years of practice" establish that such an agreement would require congressional authorization in the form of a treaty, statute or concurrent resolution by both houses. Senator Hillary Clinton has introduced, and Senator Barack Obama is co-sponsoring, legislation to deny funds to implement any such agreement that is not approved by Congress. Hundreds of such agreements, major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan administration's security commitment to the Marshall Islands and Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress. Does McCain agree with Clinton and Obama?

"War," wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918, "is the health of the state." War especially enhances presidential power, which probably is one reason why Theodore Roosevelt, Bourne's contemporary and one of McCain's heroes, relished war. "No triumph of peace," Roosevelt said, "is quite so great as the supreme triumphs of war." Roosevelt, who also said, "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands," was the archetype of the modern, hyperkinetic president.

McCain, who sometimes seems to regard his enthusiasms and disgusts as self-legitimizing and grounds for government action, probably would be TR's sort of president. The Democratic nominee will probe, and voters have nine months to ponder, the implications of that probability.

[John “Czar” McCain – yes, I’m already having nightmares.]

Post #135

Subject: George H. W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p

‘My son has totally screwed up – he listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But kids will be kids. If only we can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought former President George H.W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain yesterday.

"No one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain," Bush said and probably thought, ‘Yep, trying because of little Georgie.’ “His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt. But most importantly, he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment.”

‘He’s a warmonger and will kick in a few more Baghdad doors and will make peeps forget that my little Georgie started this mess.’

McCain, in turn, said he was deeply honored by Bush's support. "I think that our effort to continue to unite the party will be enhanced dramatically by President Bush's words," he added without acknowledging that he was being set up for McCain’s War.

President Bush has spoken warmly of McCain, calling him a "true conservative." Bush also called criticism by the right flank that McCain is not conservative enough absurd and grossly unfair. "He's got ... a sound conservative record, and yet he's not above reaching out to the other side," Bush said and probably thought, ‘He pledged “no new taxes.” What more could Nuts want? It worked for me.’

McCain has drawn the ire of some high-profile conservative pundits and others for what they call infractions against the party. McCain twice voted against Bush's tax cuts. He pushed a campaign finance overhaul that critics said restricted their free speech rights. And, he has worked across the aisle with Democrats on issues like an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- heresy in the eyes of many hard-core Republicans.

‘So, he’s a liberal, but he’s a hawkish liberal – perfect for the purpose of deflecting the blame from little Georgie.’

Democrats, in contrast, already have started casting McCain's candidacy as a continuation of George W. Bush's eight years in office. ‘“Bush on steroids,” as Pat Buchanan said. Barbara will be so happy!’

Post #134

Subject: Who is Brad Dayspring?

And why it should matter.

According to the book Hubris, Brad Dayspring – uh, not his real name – was a campaign worker for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. He was fired because he spoke to a reporter – not for attribution, of course – about how the Bush campaign did not want to talk about Iraq.

Terry Holt, the press secretary for Bush’s re-election campaign, fired him. Holt called Dayspring into his office and laid out his phone records that showed he had recently talked to the aforementioned reporter. Dayspring denied talking about Iraq, but he was fired anyway.

So, information collected by Bush to fight terrorism – phone records – was used by Bush for a political purpose.

Does that bother ya? It should – especially when ya hear Bush rail against Senate Democrats for not wanting to extend his phone snooping privilege.

What other records does he want? Who is the next “terrorism” target? Hillary Clinton? Me? You?

Post #133

Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. III

George Weasel Bush signed H.R. 5122, the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act” which bars funding for permanent basis in Iraq. He also issued a “signing statement” that said he is just going to ignore that part because he already signed his own treaty for those bases that nobody ratified – my Posts #120 and #121.

I wonder how John McCain feels about faithfully executing the laws especially if those laws might interfere with an open-ended commitment of more troops – his strategy for victory in Iraq.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

Did ya notice that McCain did not define “victory?” He only said what “victory” was not – Iraqi elections, for example.

Some things which might satisfy McCain’s definition of “victory:”
- McCain’s election day being declared a national holiday in Iraq.
- Iraqi Security goes to Pakistan and beheads Osama.
- Iraqi Parliament declares the Viet Cong a terrorist organization.

I admire McCain’s personal courage – and often wonder how I’d fare under similar circumstances. But we do not need a President who is wrestling with ghosts of Vietnam

Ya know, I thought the Historical Lesson of Vietnam was that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place – no amount of “surging” will help in someone else’s civil war.

Post #132

Subject: Target: Santa Claus

Fact #1: Santa Claus visited in December of 2000.

Fact #2: Mohammed Atta entered United States in January of 2001.

Fact #3: The terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred in September of 2001.

There you have three undeniable and indisputable true facts. Connect the dots

Obviously, neo-cons need a new boogeyman, somebody they can claim is a terrorist mastermind. Indeed, the only good thing to come from the Iraq War has been a complete repudiation of the Nutty neo-con idea that Saddam Hussein was a mastermind, continuing the Gulf War by directing terrorist attacks from Baghdad – an idea espoused by Laurie MyLroie and swallowed by, uh, Nuts!

Laurie MyLroie – http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html . Who is the real terrorist!?! :p Whose ideas led us into a costly war for no strategic gain?

My Post #104 – “Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.” If only we had of known exactly the kind of Nuts we were getting in 2000, maybe Antonin Scalia would not have installed George W. Bush.

Post #131

Subject: Why some right-wing nuts are really right-wing Nuts! :p

Ann Coulter defended the display of the confederate flag by southern states by saying, “The majority of military bases in this country are named after confederate officers, Eisenhower, Nimitz, um, the list of southerners in our military is legion.”

Uh, wow….

Eisenhower and Nimitz were NOT confederate officers – 80 years off there, Ann And there are no bases named for either of them anyway. And, tho, there are bases named for Generals Beauregard and Bragg and Hill and Hood and Lee from the confederacy, that is five – a long way from a majority of the hundreds of military bases in this country.

Coming soon to Game Shows network: “Are you smarter than a right-wing Nut? :p”

Post #130

Subject: Satire... from National Lampoon

http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bush-coins.html

George W. Bush refuses to leave office, bans private ownership of alloys, invalidates all currency and then turns the entire oil business over to Dick Cheney’s buds….

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Now that President Bush declared marshal law, it will be illegal to be in possession of precious metals after the first of the year. That’s why all citizens are urged to redeem their coins at any of the over 48,000 Halliburton service stations throughout the United States. We call it operation change for the better and for good reason. First, the new money is based on a petroleum standard so the coins will appear in gallon denominations instead of dollars, which makes sense since that’s where most of your income goes anyway.

Let’s familiarize ourselves with the new coins starting with the ten gallon denomination which features the president’s mother, Barbara Bush, who will forever be remembered for single-handedly changing the world’s perspective by noting that the refugees of hurricane Katrina were better off after the disaster than before. This happy fact is memorialized on the reverse with the adorable image of two lost children paddling past the superdome.

The five gallon coin celebrates our comatose press and the fifth anniversary of Larry King’s momentous interview with Elizabeth Taylor on the eve of the Iraq war. This coin is also known as the buffaloed press nickel because of the American bison on the reverse, butting heads with the liberal media.

The one gallon coin or the Condi, honors Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose solution to Middle East conflict is summarized on the reverse, piping Persia for peace. The half gallon coin or Scalia depicts the Supreme Court justice against a backdrop of uncounted Florida ballots. While on the reverse, presidential advisor Karl Rove celebrates the modern miracle of electronic voting.

Finally, there’s the one cup coin or the bracero, honoring the millions of aliens the president welcomed into the American labor pool. It features the unknown bracero on the front. While on the back more illegals jump the border in Roger Clark Wilson’s gateway to servitude. Yes, a fitting tribute to big business’ final triumph over organized labor. The larger denomination begin with the 25 gallon royal Limbaugh. Celebrating uniformity of speech, it features a Greco-Roman interpretation of commentators Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, under the banner, one media, one voice.

The 50 gallon coin pays homage to Donald Rumsfeld and the concept of democracy at gunpoint. The 75 gallon coin features Vice President Cheney and the creed for which he’s dedicated the bulk of his public life, “in greed we trust.” On the reverse, an American eagle and the price of gas engaged in a symbolic race for the moon.

Finally there’s the 100 gallon coin or the Bush doubloon, the presidential credo “fighting terrorism by creating it” is featured. On the reverse the events of 9/11 are recalled under the motto, “lest they forget, we’ll remind.” Here a new World Trade Center rises from the ashes of the Pentagon, crusted by the men of Iwo Jima. On the right, Vice President Cheney is seen canceling North American fighter cover, while on the left, the president reads “My Pet Goat” to Florida kindergartners. Yes, it’s a vivid snapshot of that fateful day, captured for all time in 100 percent depleted uranium. Be among the first to redeem coins worth 100 gallons or more and receive this limited edition doubloon, featuring President Bush along with Presidents Hoover and Harding, kindred leaders who also labored under a plundered economy. Yes, it’s out with the old, in with the new, operation change for the better from the United States government and Halliburton, working together to round up every cent you have. A percentage of every Halliburton purchase is donated to the New Orleans wetlands reserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Post #129

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. IV

... from http://www.motherjones.com/ -- smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

MotherJones: So you think they need to duke it out internally?

AZ: I think they're gonna have to do it. You know, if you look at the history of this world, they get to the point where they've exhausted themselves in bloodshed and they finally come around and figure out a way to work together. And as long as we're involved in this thing we add to the problem. The short-term security benefits that we create are not long lasting, because you can't be there forever.

[But,...but,...the surge is working, the surge is working.... :p]

We are doing things that practically are losers. If you've ever had experience teaching tactics, you can watch and see war games, you can see how military commanders get sort of sucked into marginal success that in the long run will be failures. Where you're killing the enemy, you're draining the enemy, but you're paying a hell of a price for it. And if you project it out into the long run you see that this is a Pyrrhic victory at best, but you're being sucked in because you are moving forward in some ways. And you lose sight, you become myopic in looking at this, you lose sight that this is a loser tactic and you need to do it with a new approach. I heard that some of the nocons were saying that if we were willing to suffer these kinds of casualty rates for about 10 years we could prevail. Well, give me a break. That just is not sustainable. And it's not victory in the end.

[And how many of those casualties neo-cons propose will be named Bush? That’s why I’ve never believed in Bush’s war – he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table! :p Seriously, there are many reasons. to oppose the Weasel’s War, but his own family’s lack of support has always struck me.]

We are fighting tactically. We interpret victory by body count, by how many cells break down, how much leadership you kill. Meanwhile, the Osama bin Ladens of the world have this endless flow of angry young men pouring into Iraq, willing to blow themselves up. You're going to make no strategic difference, and you're back to the Vietnam mentality that maybe you can win this war from the bottom up if you can kill enough of them.

[We killed over a million North Vietnamese but lost that war. It is really disappointing to hear a Vietnam veteran say “the surge is working, the surge is working.” Yes, I’m talking to you, John McCain. I thought you’d know better.]

MJ: You say we've got a five-to-seven-year effort ahead of us.

AZ: I don't mean five to seven years in terms of our commitment. This is five to seven years for the Iraqis to come to grips with their own internal civil strife. Nobody's going to march on Baghdad and plant a flag and say, "I've won; I rule Iraq." That's not gonna happen. The Shiites aren't going to dominate the Sunnis; the Sunnis are no longer going to dominate the Shiites. And the Kurds certainly aren't going to collapse; we wouldn't let that happen, and I don't think the Turks would let that happen either. So the end state in this thing is that there is no positive end state. It's going to be, from here on out, three entities that'll form at best some sort of federal system with at least initially a lot of autonomy at the local level.

[In other words, the Biden plan. :p]

It's going to take courage to say, "I'm not leaving Iraq; I will restructure the strategy but I'm not leaving." If you're a Republican, you're admitting the failure of this administration, and if you're a Democrat, you're not playing into the popular mood of withdrawal.

[Except for Ron Paul, the Republican line is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.” That attitude lost us Vietnam. Why do Republicans seem Hell-bent on losing Iraq? Democratic candidates for President – for the most part – embrace Clintonian containment! :p]

MJ: Do you think it's going to take a new administration to solve the situation?

AZ: The new administration will have an opportunity regardless if it's Democrat or Republican because what I sense out there, all over the world, is they're so hungry to reestablish positive relationships with the United States; they're so hungry for us to take a different kind of leadership role. But you can't continue to suffer the casualties in this sort of sinkhole that goes nowhere. It's important to reestablish the regional security arrangement, the old Gulf coalition that we've broken by going into Iraq. They like the idea of American support and security assurances as long as they don't come with a heavy military presence or preemptive actions that become more destabilizing.

Post #128

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. III

... from http://www.motherjones.com – smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

MotherJones: You hear the Democratic candidates talking about withdrawal, but they don't give timetables.

AZ: Yeah, but that's politics. Either it's based on political appeal or it's based on naiveté. We're not going to withdraw from the region. To pull out of Iraq would say we are inviting you to set up a sanctuary and a base of operations. The first time Al Qaeda in Iraq blows up our embassy in Amman, Jordan, guess what? We're back in. The first time the Iranian influence becomes so great that they begin to incite and meddle with the Shiites and start causing problems, guess what? We're gonna be back in.

[As well we should. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good policy to come out of Washington in the past seven years. But yet George W. Bush ignores that. Why aren’t we in Pakistan? But the reason for MY opposition to the occupation is practical. Let’s bring our troops home and rest ‘em – get ‘em ready for other battles in the War on Terror.]

We have to take a stand, and we have to ensure our interests are protected; they're too important and they reverberate around the globe. Responsible political leaders back here understand that you can't extract yourself totally from the region. You know, we haven't left anywhere and come home since the beginning of World War II. We don't come home anymore. We're still in South Korea. We're still in Germany. We're still in Japan. We're still all over the world.

[Well, why are we still in Germany and Japan? Who are we fighting there? Al-Qaeda of the Axis!?! :p And what are our interests in South Korea? If North Korea overruns South Korea, so? Let’s have a debate about that. And, uh, Vietnam – we left there. The soft bombs of capitalism have produced a thriving economy, and Vietnam is no threat to us]

MJ: Do you see a significant drawdown in the situation you're describing?

AZ: Yes. I discourage giving a number because I think when you sort out the missions and the locations, you ought to let the Pentagon, the military, not the guys in suits but the guys in uniforms, make these decisions so we won't repeat the mistakes of the past. We contained Iraq and Iran with fewer troops than report to the Pentagon every day for work. The president said containment didn't work. I don't know what the hell he was seeing. But for a decade, unless something flared up, we had on average 23,000 troops in all of CENTCOM in the most volatile region in the world.

We also had our allies contribute to our presence out there. There was $300 to $500 million a year the Saudis and Kuwaitis paid us in in-kind assistance, fuel, food, water. The Saudis built a $450 billion complex to house our troops. We had a nice arrangement out there. Containment worked. And the proof is in the pudding that the president was wrong when he said containment didn't work: Saddam was no threat to his neighbors. He didn't have WMDs. He was contained by every definition of containment.

[Ha Ha – that’s Clintonian containment! :p]

Post #127

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. II

General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), had it right in 2002. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000 and the subject of my Post #126 – an interview from October 2007. Below is a speech he gave before the Florida Economic Club, August 23, 2002. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)

But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.

The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can't regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.

Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority.

The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.

Our friends in the region who, a couple years ago, every time we wanted to throw a bomb at Saddam, kept saying, "Why don't you get serious? We'll support you if you take him out. But if you're only going to piss him off and let him rise from the ashes, we don't want to do it."

Now that we want to do it, it's the wrong time. He'll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic feelings from the West (among people who) misinterpret the attack.

We could end up with collateral damage.

You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it -- if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion

[Let’s see – the war will be expensive; the war will stretch our military; the war will fracture our alliance in the War on Terror; the war will require our troops to be there “forever.” Good call. :p]

You're going to have to tell me the threat is there, right now. That immediate, that it takes the priority over all those things I've just mentioned.... I've just hit the tops of the waves.

(Person in audience speaks. Laughter.)

In fairness to President Bush, because I work for him -- I don't get paid, though -- in fairness to President Bush, President Bush has invited the debate and he allows anyone who has a view to speak to the debate. I mean, within his own administration you hear different views.

[Zinni was Special Envoy to the Middle East in 2002. The debate was a fraud. George W. Bush had already decided and just needed to scare peeps – “fear the mushroom cloud,” ya know.]

So I'm encouraged by the fact the debate takes place. It ought to be, and it ought to be public and open. And although it's messy and we're trying to figure out which way to come down on it, I think it's good that it's happening, that Congress is looking into it. That it isn't a party issue. I mean, you have Sen. Hagel and Dick Armey and others, that have taken a position, and other -- Sen. Inohofe and others who have taken another -- even within the parties, you have people on both sides. That's what great about the U.S.

So I don't mind the debate. It should be confusing because it's a confusing issue, but in the end the people are going to have to decide, if this -- if the threat is there, and the case is going to have to be made to them.

Post #126

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality

... from http://www.motherjones.com – "smart, fearless journalism," an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

Mother Jones: What do you think would be a realistic withdrawal time frame?

General Anthony Zinni: I don't think we'll end up withdrawing in the sense that everybody's coming home, because we can't leave a festering threat in the middle of this region. And obviously, the political will isn't there to continue the way we're going. No matter who the presidential candidate is and however Congress comes down, we're going to find ourselves devolving into what I would call a containment, support, or reinforcing role. And it might look something like this: U.S. forces retain bases in the Kurdish areas and Al Anbar province. And their rules of engagement, if you will, would be to go after Al Qaeda targets, gain intelligence, help secure the border, and prevent spillover. I think we would retain and maybe establish a more robust security-systems program for the Iraqis. I think what we would stop doing is getting between the militias and extract ourselves from the sectarian violence. Quit this sort of street patrolling. I think it would become sink or swim for the Iraqi forces.

[Unfortunately, this is the best we can do, a return to containment. The political rhetoric here needs to catch up to this reality. Democrats can point to Clinton’s success against Saddam – for eight years, Saddam was boxed in; he was not a threat to his neighbors or us. Of course, Republicans can point to Daddy Bush. McCain needs to drop his “we’ll be there 100 years” talk.]

If you look at the casualty-generating operations that we have, being in the streets, being on the roads where we're subject to IEDs, where we get ourselves between Sunni and Shiite militias; I think those are the things you're gonna find there's no stomach for and people are going to be looking, the political leadership is going to be looking for alternatives to not let the problem of Iraq spill over and affect our interest in the region.

[If it wasn’t for oil – “our interest in the region,” we’d leave tomorrow; of course, if it wasn’t for oil, we wouldn’t be there in the first place.]

But how do you contain it? Minimize the casualties, force the Iraqis to step up, and I think that you have to have the stomach for the fact that it's a five-to-seven-year effort and the Iraqis are probably going to get bloodied in this, but it's their civil war. It may look something like Lebanon in the mid-'80s in certain areas.

[Ha Ha – the Weasel’s War. :p That – “Lebanon in the mid-'80s” – is a long way from a blooming democracy. It is certainly not “a major strategic achievement,” as Charles Krauthammer said in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007 – my Post #125. In the ultimate “do over,” we WILL return to a Clintonian containment – and forget the stupidity of George W. Bush!]

Post #125

Subject: It's 2008 -- thangs are going great! [rolleyes]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/21/success_against_the_axis

Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, said, “Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.”

No, Bush will be judged on the War on Terror. His “axis of evil” speech will be seen as a misguided framing of what our most urgent national security task is.

Bill Richardson has it right:

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

“Our military presence in Iraq is prolonging the violence, costing us more than $10 billion a month, and distracting us from the war against Al Qaeda. George Bush's "surge" has suppressed some of the violence, at least temporarily, but it has failed to bring about political reconciliation. Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do -- but they cannot win someone else's civil war. Now it is up to the Iraqis. We need to get our troops out so that a new political process can begin. … The longer we stay, the more people die, the further the situation deteriorates, and the more damage we do both to our military and to our reputation. Only when we are out of this quagmire can we refocus on the real war against Al Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and who are still headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.”

And….

"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it." – Lieutenant General Robert G. Grad, Jr. (USA, Ret.)

But Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, is completely wrong when he says that a “United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland [is] a major strategic achievement.”

Huh? Why do they – the terrorists, the jihadists, the Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden – hate us?

Because WE are over THERE. As Pat Buchanan said, in his September 1, 2006, column “Islamo-fascism?:” “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.”

How is a permanent military presence a major strategic achievement? Does anybody really believe that a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq will calm Osama?

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. So, a “win” in Iraq does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.

Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?”

Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, said, “On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Senator George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.”

History WILL judge George W. Bush severely – he took his eye off the ball. There is an atomic bomb with the name “George W. Bush” being built out there – but NOT in Baghdad.

Post #124

Subject: Endorsement?

Democratic – um, Independent –Senator Joe Lieberman is endorsing Republican Senator John McCain for President. Lieberman and McCain co-authored the 2002 resolution in which the Senate abdicated its Constitutional responsibility and authorized President George W. Bush to declare war – a cowardly act with an unfortunately long history in this country.

Lieberman, without a word about one coward covering another coward’s back, said, "Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America. Let's put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as President who will help us do that."

McCain said “Thank you for covering my cowardly ass” – no, wait, he didn’t. He really said, "It is one of the great honors of my political career to have known him, to have worked with him and to have received his endorsement."

A Lieberman aide said that the Connecticut senator decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against
Islamic extremism."

Aaahhh – there it is.

Who are these preachers of Islamic extremism, and how will kicking in a few more Baghdad help?

I quote from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/, from September 1, 2006.

“America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.”

“Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.”

Bombing Iran, democracy blooming in Iraq or invading Syria will NOT stop planes from flying into buildings. Our enemy is in Afghanistan – the enemy who should be the focus of our military. Simply, we need to be smarter in order to protect the interest and well-being of the United States of America.

Post #123

Subject: Exactly right-wing! :p

If a right-wing Nut has a good opinion, I’ll admit it. It’s part of that “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer” philosophy. I refer of course to “Knee-Deep in Religion.” by Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, December 13, 2007.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/13/knee-deep_in_religion

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney declares, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with "Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made." Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.

[And that – “None of your damn business.” – is the only proper response. When I started this blog, God told me to never mention our relationship, and I find it hard to believe that God has approved of so much shameless pandering.]

Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.

In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.

Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.

The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.

This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.

Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.

But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed that it confers some special status.

Romney has been faulted for not throwing at least one bone of acknowledgment to nonbelievers in his big religion speech last week. But he couldn't, because the theme of the speech was that there was something special about having your values drawn from religious faith. Indeed, faith is politically indispensable. "Freedom requires religion," Romney declared, "just as religion requires freedom."

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.

In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.

In this country, there is no special political standing that one derives from being a Christian leader like Mike Huckabee or a fervent believer like Mitt Romney. Just as there should be no disability or disqualification for political views that derive from religious sensibilities, whether the subject is civil rights or stem cells.

This is pretty elementary stuff. I haven't exactly invented hot water here. The very rehearsing of these arguments seems tiresome and redundant.

But apparently not in the campaign of 2008. It's two centuries since the passage of the First Amendment and our presidential candidates still cannot distinguish establishment from free exercise.

Post #122

Subject: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. Pt. II

Lieutenant General Robert Gard signed a letter to President George W. Bush critical of foreign policy last year – see my Post #14. On “Hardball,” then, Chris Matthews asked, “Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?”

And Gard answered, “I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.”

In my Post #112, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.

Simply, History would have told us what to expect – even the History of predictions! ;p

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, from 1994)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?

DICK CHENEY, FUTURE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?

CHENEY: Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. And under the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?

That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have for the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north, you have got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.

And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many,

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Life in Bush’s Washington goes on -- unencumbered by that burden of History! :p

White House press secretary Dana Perino at a White House briefing held on October 26 was asked, "Do you want to address the remarks by President Putin, who said the United States setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe was like the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, setting up a Cuban missile crisis?" "Well, I think that the historical comparison is not -- does not exactly work," Perino responded.

The Cuban Missile Crisis? She didn't know what it was. "I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about… the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure." "I came home and I asked my husband," she said. "I said, 'Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?' And he said, 'Oh, Dana.' "

Ya would think that the press secretary for the President of the United States would have at least a passing knowledge of the most important event of the second-half of the 20th century. But consider who she works for? :p

Post #121

Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. II

In my Post #112 – Subject: "a nightmare with no end in sight” – I quoted retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, who called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame. “After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," Sanchez said.

Careful readers of this blog will know that is exactly where I stand: We are stuck in Irag, and that has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

Sanchez also said the Iraq war plan from the start was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic," and the administration has not provided the resources necessary for victory, which he said the military could never achieve on its own.

Yep, George W. Bush has never understood the appropriate role of the military: What they do, what resources are required to do what they do, and what resources are required for when what they do is over. The military is, after all, composed of people.

And, now, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "declaration of principles" to keep us mired in Iraq permanently – tho by not calling a treaty, a “treaty,” the Bushies manage to bypass Senate ratification. Simply, Bush wants to leave 50.000 of our troops as a “trip-wire” – like our troops in South Korea – to deter aggression from obviously Iran. How many peeps had our soldiers being held hostage as an original reason for supporting Bush’s folly? And how is that fighting Terror?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 11, 2007)

SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: So the question we must answer is not whether we are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. That is the lesson of 9/11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Our focus obviously should be on Pakistan – where jihadists are close to getting their hands on a nuclear arsenal.

Instead, we are being led “to support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.” Bush said that Iraq's leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” – Fact Sheet at whitehouse.gov : U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation.

There it is, peeps: Bush’s plan for domination of the Middle East. My, that’s a long way from the threat of WMD. It confirms my suspicion that Bush is making this up as he goes along. He has no idea when it’s over in Iraq, when it’s time to let the Iraqis sink or swim on their own, when it’s time to focus elsewhere.

At least, we won’t have to hear “the surge is working, the surge is working” any more – tho watch out for those “Bush as Truman” spins! :p