Post #57
Subject: NoMoreTroops.com
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
Subject: What you can do to Stop the Escalation in Iraq
The President and members of his administration are working overtime to convince Americans, and the world, that their proposal to send 21,000 more young men and women into Iraq -- escalating the war -- can salvage their failed policies there. Like millions of Americans, I have listened to the President's proposal but fear that it will only make the situation worse. Escalating the war in Iraq, and possibly into Iran and Syria now, is not a solution -- it is a tragic mistake. Now we need your help. I've launched a new website so you can add your voice to the growing chorus opposing the President's proposal. Please visit
www.NoMoreTroops.com
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Post #56
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. We should leave immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder.
The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Subject: An interview with TheDaF
WHO ARE YOU? Nobody important. I have no training or experience to deal with this – politics in general ranks #3 or #4 on my list of interests, and the Iraq War is the #1 political issue of our time. I’m just an ordinary Joe with internet access. I’d be delighted to be read around Washington, but, if nobody reads, that’s OK, too. I just felt I had to do something, ya know….
WHAT ARE YOUR POLITIICS? I’m a liberal with conservative leanings. Or a conservative with liberal leanings. I am a libertarian who believes in the New Deal. I’m a Constitutionalist who believes the Constitution is living document. I pick and choose which principles to follow – unless of course realism dictates I abandon all principles. I am a unique American – just like everybody else! ;p
CAN YOU SUM UP THE IRAQ WAR? We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror – indeed, The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. We should leave immediately.
BUT WAIT – WON’T AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL LEAVE A BAD SITUATION IN IRAQ? Yes, from my Post #52, quoting George W. Bush, “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” Actually, I see worse things. But the Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse as we continue to bleed, making the War on Terror longer and harder.
The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor ‘em. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….”
The important thing now is to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history – that’s why I was impressed with Hillary’s announcement to enter the race for ’08. She seemed to understand the stakes.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Post #55
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Subject: George W. Bush’s “State of the Union” – as should be delivered….
My fellow Americans, the state of the Union is about to get stronger. Effective at Noon tomorrow, I shall resign as President, and Dick Cheney shall resign as Vice-President. The next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shall take over. May God bless her.
I made a mistake. I followed a political theory which said that a little military pressure here or there would thwart bigger problems. Unfortunately, that political theory does not identify the “here or there” where military pressure should be applied. It is plainly obvious that Iraq was not one of those “here or theres.”
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. We had more pressing needs – and still do. Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to his neighbors or most importantly to us. Saddam was also an effective counter-weight to Iran. I didn’t plan to fail; I failed to plan for what comes next for Iraq. I was expecting “sweets and flowers.”
Now, I can’t get us out of where we obviously should not have been in the first place. I reject the counsel of those who got us into this mess and now call for a broader war. But I don’t know what to do now. That’s why I’m resigning. Over 3000 deaths for my mistake is more than I can stand. Hopefully, someone else can stop this mess.
May God bless America….
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Post #54
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror?” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?]
Subject: George W. Bush is right! Pt. II
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last Wednesday on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
[W]e will continue to pursue al-Qaida and foreign fighters. Al-Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al-Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al -Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al-Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
[Good Lord, Ms. Bush. I question your evidence. If there is one thing we should have leaned these past few years, we question your honesty. But, even if true, don’t you remember your own words -- “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them?” Then, invade Iraq again. I will support you. But get out now – wait until there is a good reason to invade Iraq. Bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? As Republican Senator Gordon Smith said in my Post #45, “… we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation. … That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake….]
[S]tabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
[Good Lord. Bush’s “New Way Forward” is to provoke a regional war.]
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict.
[No shit, Sherlock. But why is our military kidnapping Iranians?]
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
[Yes, we are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time – As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p I question, tho, your definition of who we are fighting. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”]
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom — and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
[But NOT militarily. Read your own speech! :p]
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
[How does the President know that -- “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror?” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?]
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Post #53
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Subject: Fighting terrorism can be sexy!
On the TV news yesterday, I saw a reporter interview a “terrorism expert” about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece. To paraphrase:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Well, it’s hard. We need good intelligence to find out who these people are and what they are planning to do before they do it.”
Wrong answer. To the simplistic neo-con way of viewing the world, a simple sexy approach is needed. Yesterday should have been:
“REPORTER: How can we fight ‘em?
“EXPERT: Send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad!”
Oh, wait – the terrorists involved in attack on the U.S. embassy in Greece have been identified as Greek terrorists with quarrels with the Greek government. That fact stands in contrast to the lazy neo-con way of lumping all of our enemies into one basket and lumping into the category of enemy by race, religion and region. Have ya ever heard “the only good Arab is a dead Arab?” I suggest neo-cons read the Declaration of Independence – especially that “all men are created equal” part.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Post #52
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Subject: George W. Bush is right!
The following is the transcript of Bush’s speech prepared for delivery last night on new strategy for Iraq War. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.
[Yes. Exactly. The Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure.]
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
[Ummm, well, the “new” strategy – more of the same, a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President and making the War on Terror longer and harder.]
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.
[Yes. Our military has won the war.]
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
[Yes, too. George Weasel Bush has lost the peace.]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
[Why is that clear now? Why wasn’t it clear on November 6?]
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.
[Oh, puh-lease. We all know how much respect the Iraq Study Group really gets in the White House.]
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.
[Yes. There are only bad options. Sending 21,000 more American targets for a slow motion defeat as Bush tries to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President is morally reprehensible – nothing short of murderous.]
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
[The Iraq War has already created that situation – another day in Iraq will only make things worse.]
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
[Yes. “For the safety of our people, America must” get out of “Iraq…” now. What happens if North Korea invades South Korea tomorrow? Do we respond? With what Army? Suppose Iran sets up terrorists training camps? Do we invade? Ya bet we do – but with what Army? We are bleeding to death in Iraq. “Run, run, run away, live again to fight another day.” Ya know, I think George and Barbara never let lil’ George W. play in a playground. :p]
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Post #51
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Subject: … on the IraqStudyGroup
Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , wrote the following on December 12, 2006. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The IraqStudyGroup report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
[Yes. And in a similar way, George W. Bush and his “New Way Forward” to be announced tomorrow night is just an effort to hand off responsibility for his mess to the next President. Shame on Bush for his willingness to sacrificc more American lives for his own legacy.]
The "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission may be right.
[Uh, Iraq IS a lost cause – the reality IS it was never winnable. Bush has made a mistake. The important thing now is to manage the defeat. Adding troops is certainly not the answer.]
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush’s rejection of our advice that lost the war."
[Good Lord. Just hold on for two more years, scare the Democrats into not ending this mess, then the neo-cons can have “McCain’s War” – and we can lose another four years in the War on Terror. As I said in Post #25, “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. We need to be smarter.” No more “bombs away,” neo-nuts! :p]
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense. "If only we had known then what we know now — that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein — we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld’s Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light." The Democrats’ defense begs these questions: Why didn’t you know? Why didn’t you find out? Why didn’t you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
[Amen. The obvious answer: Political cowardice. That’s why I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around Hillary’s coronation in ’08 – on the most important issue of our time, she was on the wrong side. And still is.]
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
[Amen, again. Of course, Bush’s “New Way Forward” is just about political cover for himself.]
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today’s establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon’s War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
[Unsurprising, too, still, deaf ears in Washington….]
Friday, January 05, 2007
Post #50
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Subject: No More New Troops in Iraq
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
From: "Joe Biden"
As President Bush prepares to announce a new strategy for Iraq, one idea has emerged as his leading option: to surge more troops into Baghdad in a last ditch effort to stabilize the city.
There is one big problem with that option: in the absence of a political settlement among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it will not work. We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again.
And surging our forces in Baghdad risks terrible consequences: more American lives lost and more unbearable strain on our military for no strategic gain. If the President proposes ecalation in Iraq, I will oppose him and so will many of my colleagues in Congress.
In January, I intend to hold a series of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. I have already invited Secretary of State Rice to testify. It is my hope that these hearings will generate a bipartisan consensus around the best way to move forward in Iraq and convince the President that "surging" additional forces into Baghdad is not the answer.
[OK, Joe, but no “invites,” no “convincing” – the ball is in your court. The November elections have given you and Congress the power – Subpeona Conni and force her to testify about Bush’s “New Way Forward.” And, if the answers do not make sense, cut off the money for this God-foresaken mess in Iraq. Be a leader – Stand up. If you want to be President, the time is now to start acting Presidential!]
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Post #49
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”
Yes, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, from my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Subject: 2007 – it’s hotter than an oven!
As always, the question is “Where do we go from here?” In my Post #1, I quoted from “Is defeat now an option?” – the June 27, 2006 column by Pat Buchanan at http://www.theamericancause.org/ :
“We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.”
Yes, I said, three options:
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
In my Post #27, I said, “Ummm, well, why did I oppose the diversion into Iraq to begin with? We hadn’t finished in Afghanistan, and, as I feared, resources for our Afghanistan mission were diverted. I consider our mission in Afghanistan to be justifiable, an appropriate use of our military force. ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organization and the governments that harbor them.’ – yes! Iraq was a mistake.”
Iraq was a violation of Bush’s own anti-terrorism policy, ‘To make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.’ As I also said in my Post #27, “There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq… until our invasion.” What will Bush do if democracy blooms in Iraq tomorrow and they vote to harbor terrorist organizations? He don’t have no Army. :p
As I also said in my Post #27,”no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion.” I personally favor #1, but, well, #1 is wrong – a false choice.
The Iraq War was winnable – our military objectives were obtainable, and they were! However, Bush’s “democracy that’s an allay in the War on Terror” is a political objective – an inappropriate use of our military. I find #2 or a “New Way Forward” to be morally reprehensible. #3 – let’s just declare victory and come home.
Again, from my Post #27, “I saw on TV the other day a ‘talking head’ ask somebody who was in favor of an immediate withdrawal – forget whom [blush] – about the potential problems of withdrawal. He said ‘We’ll see.’ In other words, it is better to leave now and face the consequences now than to leave in, say, 10 years and face what definitely will be even worse consequences. And, yes, we will be leaving at some point.”
Let’s “Get out… now!” and get back to the War on Terror….
Friday, December 29, 2006
Post #48
Subject: The future is now!
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.”
Uh, we are already there. The Iraq War – George W. Bush’s folly – will haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.
History will condemn Bush and his administration for the wanton disregard of the truth – before and during the war. From WMD to the constant “turning the corner” and “making progress,” what was once fear-mongering has now given away to mindless cheerleading. Shame on Bush for getting us into what he can’t get us out of.
History will also condemn those who originally supported this mess for the reason of politics – a fear of opposing a popular President. Where was Hillary Clinton? Our leaders who should have known better?
But, ultimately, History will judge us, the American people, harshest of all. Why were we so blind to support liberating, to get a ”democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror?” Judging from my e-mails, peeps were scared shitless of WMD – when the invasion did not find any WMD, our invasion became a liberation. I’m still waiting for sweets and flowers. :p
Our military objectives were removing Saddam and WMD. I opposed that – we had Saddam boxed in and another more important battle in Afghanistan. But those objectives were obtainable – and they were. Our occupation should have ended then. That’s why I say “Get out… now!”
A “democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror” is a political objective – our military cannot and should not be asked to achieve this. Yet, Bush wants to send 30,000 more American targets to Iraq. There is your “endangering Americans” right there. :p
But my “Get out… now!” is not rooted in some ‘60s Peace & Love ideology. My stand is practical. Look, we are bleeding to death in Iraq – our troops may be needed tomorrow, somewhere, more urgently. If we can leave with honor, great. If we have to leave humiliated, OK – I certainly don’t give a damn about saving the image of George Weasel Bush. The important thing is to “Get out… now!”
Subject: The future is now!
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.”
Uh, we are already there. The Iraq War – George W. Bush’s folly – will haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.
History will condemn Bush and his administration for the wanton disregard of the truth – before and during the war. From WMD to the constant “turning the corner” and “making progress,” what was once fear-mongering has now given away to mindless cheerleading. Shame on Bush for getting us into what he can’t get us out of.
History will also condemn those who originally supported this mess for the reason of politics – a fear of opposing a popular President. Where was Hillary Clinton? Our leaders who should have known better?
But, ultimately, History will judge us, the American people, harshest of all. Why were we so blind to support liberating, to get a ”democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror?” Judging from my e-mails, peeps were scared shitless of WMD – when the invasion did not find any WMD, our invasion became a liberation. I’m still waiting for sweets and flowers. :p
Our military objectives were removing Saddam and WMD. I opposed that – we had Saddam boxed in and another more important battle in Afghanistan. But those objectives were obtainable – and they were. Our occupation should have ended then. That’s why I say “Get out… now!”
A “democracy that’s an allay in the war on terror” is a political objective – our military cannot and should not be asked to achieve this. Yet, Bush wants to send 30,000 more American targets to Iraq. There is your “endangering Americans” right there. :p
But my “Get out… now!” is not rooted in some ‘60s Peace & Love ideology. My stand is practical. Look, we are bleeding to death in Iraq – our troops may be needed tomorrow, somewhere, more urgently. If we can leave with honor, great. If we have to leave humiliated, OK – I certainly don’t give a damn about saving the image of George Weasel Bush. The important thing is to “Get out… now!”
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Post #47
Subject: “OK, smarty pants, what would you do if…?
I get that a lot. It’s easier to criticize than to offer a real alternative.
So,…
The set-up: I’m the President. I’m sitting in the Oval Office wondering why my intern staff does not look like The Girls Next Door. The CIA Director walks in. “Mr. President,” he says, “Iran will have a nuclear bomb within six months.”
The question: “What would you do?”
First, I’d raise my eyebrow and ask, “Is this a slam dunk!?!” Seriously, I’d ask to see the evidence. The only evidence George W. Bush saw of Iraq’s WMD was Dick Cheney drooling – apparently. :p
Second, I’d pick up the phone and call the President of Iran – I can’t pronounce or even spell his name, but I’d definitely have him on speed-dial: “Hey, Ahmad, baby – how are you doing? What do you think of Donald Trump giving Miss USA a second chance? … Yes, decadent American blonde – gotta love it! I think The Donald told her ‘No more partying in public. The next time you feel the need to party, come on up to my place. And bring that Miss Teen with ya.’ … Yep, haha, decadent American businessman! Actually, I think Miss Nevada deserved a second chance even more – her indiscretion was in the past. But those pictures did her in. Ya got those pics? Well, I’ll e-mail ‘em to ya.
“Hey, I hear that ya starting a nuclear program. That’s smart – oil won’t last forever. Buy American, haha – our technology is better than that Russian crap.
“While I got ya on the phone, let me invite ya over for an All-American tour, the Grand Canyon, Disneyland, whatever ya want to see. And, of course, a speech to Congress. … Yes, I’d love to see Tehran – have your people call my people.”
I’d hang up, roll my eyes and mutter ‘That s.o.b. wants me to visit his desert!’ See, Bush has never leaned to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer – indeed, Bush’s self-righteous approach to foreign policy has gotten nuclear weapons in North Korea, a program in Iran, and a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq.
Third, I’d call the Secretary of Defense: “Draw up plans for a full-scale invasion of Iran within five months. None of that half-hearted air-strikes nonsense, I want to see 1000 tanks rolling over the Afghan border. How long will it take to get those tanks ready and in place? You got five months. You may want to come over here and rummage through Cheney’s old desk. :p”
At the five-month mark with troops in place, if diplomacy has failed, I’d ask Congress to declare war. The #1 lesson of Vietnam was commit the country BEFORE committing the troops. With a declaration of war,…
[drools]….
Subject: “OK, smarty pants, what would you do if…?
I get that a lot. It’s easier to criticize than to offer a real alternative.
So,…
The set-up: I’m the President. I’m sitting in the Oval Office wondering why my intern staff does not look like The Girls Next Door. The CIA Director walks in. “Mr. President,” he says, “Iran will have a nuclear bomb within six months.”
The question: “What would you do?”
First, I’d raise my eyebrow and ask, “Is this a slam dunk!?!” Seriously, I’d ask to see the evidence. The only evidence George W. Bush saw of Iraq’s WMD was Dick Cheney drooling – apparently. :p
Second, I’d pick up the phone and call the President of Iran – I can’t pronounce or even spell his name, but I’d definitely have him on speed-dial: “Hey, Ahmad, baby – how are you doing? What do you think of Donald Trump giving Miss USA a second chance? … Yes, decadent American blonde – gotta love it! I think The Donald told her ‘No more partying in public. The next time you feel the need to party, come on up to my place. And bring that Miss Teen with ya.’ … Yep, haha, decadent American businessman! Actually, I think Miss Nevada deserved a second chance even more – her indiscretion was in the past. But those pictures did her in. Ya got those pics? Well, I’ll e-mail ‘em to ya.
“Hey, I hear that ya starting a nuclear program. That’s smart – oil won’t last forever. Buy American, haha – our technology is better than that Russian crap.
“While I got ya on the phone, let me invite ya over for an All-American tour, the Grand Canyon, Disneyland, whatever ya want to see. And, of course, a speech to Congress. … Yes, I’d love to see Tehran – have your people call my people.”
I’d hang up, roll my eyes and mutter ‘That s.o.b. wants me to visit his desert!’ See, Bush has never leaned to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer – indeed, Bush’s self-righteous approach to foreign policy has gotten nuclear weapons in North Korea, a program in Iran, and a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq.
Third, I’d call the Secretary of Defense: “Draw up plans for a full-scale invasion of Iran within five months. None of that half-hearted air-strikes nonsense, I want to see 1000 tanks rolling over the Afghan border. How long will it take to get those tanks ready and in place? You got five months. You may want to come over here and rummage through Cheney’s old desk. :p”
At the five-month mark with troops in place, if diplomacy has failed, I’d ask Congress to declare war. The #1 lesson of Vietnam was commit the country BEFORE committing the troops. With a declaration of war,…
[drools]….
Friday, December 22, 2006
Post #46
Subject: Greetings
Holiday Greetings
For My Democrat Friends: "Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not wthout due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."
For My Republican Friends: "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!"
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Post #45
Subject: A genuine change-of-heart… or a search for political cover?
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
From CNN [drumroll]:
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
As the Iraq war clearly worsens, some U.S. Senators who voted for the war have now come out against it. One of them is now deeply, deeply frustrated about the current course, and is out blasting the Bush administration's strategy. Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon had this to say late last week about Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Senator, a powerful, emotional statement I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about face?
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up.
[Uuummm, a vote, yes – does that mean you, Mr. Smith, will not vote any more funds for this God-foresaken mess? After all, Congress controls the purse. Will you not vote to pay to send 30,000 more American targets? Or are you just looking for a campaign slogan?]
And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.
[That “establishing democracy” part is what should have given you pause, Mr. Smith, to begin with – establishing democracy is NOT a military objective. Removing Saddam and the threat of WMD are military objectives. We have won. Why we continue to have sitting ducks in Iraq is beyond me – actually, I have a pretty good idea, but my Mama taught me not to speak ill of the mentally deficient. :p]
BLITZER: So you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?
SMITH: I have concluded that. You know, this is a fight, when you get right down to the root of it, between Sunnis and Shias that goes back a millennia of time over who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed. That is not our fault. That is not our fight and that's not something we can fix.
And I felt I had to speak out, because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice. And this is not.
[You are so right, Mr. Smith. We have won the Iraq War militarily. But we cannot succeed military with what is a political problem.]
BLITZER: So let me repeat the question. Who should be held accountable for what you believe has now become -- and I'll just use the word fiasco or disaster or some word along those lines?
SMITH: Well, I think all of us with positions of responsibility are accountable. But, clearly, I can't be quiet anymore. I'm leveling this charge at no one man or woman, but I am clearly saying that the American people will and should hold us accountable.
So if you've got something to say, now is the time to say it. Either let's fight the war intelligently for an objective that is obtainable, or let's admit it and figure out how to preserve the lives of our soldiers.
[The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle – George W. Bush will get the blame. And he should. Oh, History will harshly judge neo-cons, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. A special paragraph will be reserved for those who first supported this mess, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. However, those who have a genuine change-of-heart get a footnote. We’ll see, Mr. Smith, just how genuine you are – you’ve used your voice, now use your vote,]
BLITZER: Because morally speaking, if you do conclude it's futile right now and that a year from now it's not going to make any difference what the U.S. does, that the situation is still going to be a sectarian civil war -- your words -- is it moral to keep U.S. men and women in harm's way, let another thousand or so Americans die over the next year if it's simply going to wind up exactly, if not worse, than it is right now?
SMITH: It is not right to do that. Let me also add, though, that we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation.
There are ways to reposition on the borders of Iraq to take on terrorist jihadists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And these are the people that we want to fight. That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake, not just for Iraq's.
[Yes, the War on Terror is our fight; the Iraq War is not. Glad to have you on board.]
BLITZER: Knowing what you know now -- and obviously with hindsight we're all a lot smarter -- if you had to do it over again knowing that no WMD in Iraq, no al Qaeda connection, knowing 3,000 Americans were going to be killed, $400 billion spent, $2 billion a week, would you have voted for that resolution...
SMITH: No.
BLITZER: ... to support this war?
SMITH: As I said in my floor statement, had I known there were no WMD there, I would not have voted for it. But I do want to add that I believe it's a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein. I think there would have been other ways to do that without the cost in life and treasure that our current approach has led us to. … [T]hat the time is now to rethink this and reposition the American war against terrorism.
Subject: A genuine change-of-heart… or a search for political cover?
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
From CNN [drumroll]:
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
As the Iraq war clearly worsens, some U.S. Senators who voted for the war have now come out against it. One of them is now deeply, deeply frustrated about the current course, and is out blasting the Bush administration's strategy. Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon had this to say late last week about Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Senator, a powerful, emotional statement I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about face?
SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up.
[Uuummm, a vote, yes – does that mean you, Mr. Smith, will not vote any more funds for this God-foresaken mess? After all, Congress controls the purse. Will you not vote to pay to send 30,000 more American targets? Or are you just looking for a campaign slogan?]
And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.
[That “establishing democracy” part is what should have given you pause, Mr. Smith, to begin with – establishing democracy is NOT a military objective. Removing Saddam and the threat of WMD are military objectives. We have won. Why we continue to have sitting ducks in Iraq is beyond me – actually, I have a pretty good idea, but my Mama taught me not to speak ill of the mentally deficient. :p]
BLITZER: So you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?
SMITH: I have concluded that. You know, this is a fight, when you get right down to the root of it, between Sunnis and Shias that goes back a millennia of time over who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed. That is not our fault. That is not our fight and that's not something we can fix.
And I felt I had to speak out, because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice. And this is not.
[You are so right, Mr. Smith. We have won the Iraq War militarily. But we cannot succeed military with what is a political problem.]
BLITZER: So let me repeat the question. Who should be held accountable for what you believe has now become -- and I'll just use the word fiasco or disaster or some word along those lines?
SMITH: Well, I think all of us with positions of responsibility are accountable. But, clearly, I can't be quiet anymore. I'm leveling this charge at no one man or woman, but I am clearly saying that the American people will and should hold us accountable.
So if you've got something to say, now is the time to say it. Either let's fight the war intelligently for an objective that is obtainable, or let's admit it and figure out how to preserve the lives of our soldiers.
[The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle – George W. Bush will get the blame. And he should. Oh, History will harshly judge neo-cons, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. A special paragraph will be reserved for those who first supported this mess, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. However, those who have a genuine change-of-heart get a footnote. We’ll see, Mr. Smith, just how genuine you are – you’ve used your voice, now use your vote,]
BLITZER: Because morally speaking, if you do conclude it's futile right now and that a year from now it's not going to make any difference what the U.S. does, that the situation is still going to be a sectarian civil war -- your words -- is it moral to keep U.S. men and women in harm's way, let another thousand or so Americans die over the next year if it's simply going to wind up exactly, if not worse, than it is right now?
SMITH: It is not right to do that. Let me also add, though, that we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation.
There are ways to reposition on the borders of Iraq to take on terrorist jihadists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And these are the people that we want to fight. That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake, not just for Iraq's.
[Yes, the War on Terror is our fight; the Iraq War is not. Glad to have you on board.]
BLITZER: Knowing what you know now -- and obviously with hindsight we're all a lot smarter -- if you had to do it over again knowing that no WMD in Iraq, no al Qaeda connection, knowing 3,000 Americans were going to be killed, $400 billion spent, $2 billion a week, would you have voted for that resolution...
SMITH: No.
BLITZER: ... to support this war?
SMITH: As I said in my floor statement, had I known there were no WMD there, I would not have voted for it. But I do want to add that I believe it's a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein. I think there would have been other ways to do that without the cost in life and treasure that our current approach has led us to. … [T]hat the time is now to rethink this and reposition the American war against terrorism.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Post #44
Subject: It's Time to Say "Thanks!" – again, Post #12….
I got the following e-mail again recently, and I feel that now is an appropriate time to add it:
”If you go to this web site, http://www.letssaythanks.com/ , you can pick out a thank you card, and Xerox will print it and send it to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the Armed Services. How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one. Pass this on to your members and friends! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our soldiers received bunches of these? Our TROOPS need to know we are behind them!”
Subject: It's Time to Say "Thanks!" – again, Post #12….
I got the following e-mail again recently, and I feel that now is an appropriate time to add it:
”If you go to this web site, http://www.letssaythanks.com/ , you can pick out a thank you card, and Xerox will print it and send it to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the Armed Services. How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one. Pass this on to your members and friends! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our soldiers received bunches of these? Our TROOPS need to know we are behind them!”
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Post #43
Subject: George W. Bush has gotten into quite a mess.
Why it was wrong to invade Iraq:
- The Iraq War was inhuman, a violation of basic human decency. It’s wrong to pick a fight. Whether you’re President or a schoolkid in a schoolyard, it’s just wrong to pick a fight – morally, ethically, against your religion, whatever. Something tells me that Bush has never been a schoolkid in a schoolyard. :p
- The Iraq War was not in our interest – the threat was NOT clear and imminent. Oh, I, too, was scared shitless of the prospect of a mushroom cloud. Now, if Saddam’s sons had bought plane tickets for New York and wanted to check “Atomic Bomb” into luggage, I would have signed up to ride a tank into Baghdad – indeed, I said at the time that it was irresponsible and reckless to wait for the U.N…. if the threat was so clear and imminent. I also said at the time that, the first time Bush is wrong about WMD, it will be more difficult to invade another country – even if there is better evidence against that other country. But, as we now know, there was no reason to be sacred shitless – shame on Bush for his disregard of honesty and the truth.
Of course, Bush will say – as he has already done – that the clear and imminent threat was a “gathering storm.” Let’s see:: 1. Saddam was a bad man. 2. Saddam, one day, might possibly get some bad weapons. 3. A bad man with bad weapons might possibly be a bad situation. Does anybody outside of the Vice-President’s office still follow that logic?
- The Iraq War was a distraction from and a drain on the War on Terror. As I feared, we lost our focus on the enemy who attacked us, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Now, we are bleeding to death. What happens if Cuba invades Florida, if Al-Qaeda sets up camps in the Sudan, if terrorists hit a U.S. ship in a Yemen port, if the London subway is bombed, if North Korea invades South Korea?
- The Iraq War was illegal. I know that many right-wing nuts have no respect for international law. But the ultimate irony is that we are violating the very international law we wrote. America used to have ideals and values which we proudly wrote down. See, after World War II, we decided to have trials to hold peeps accountable for that mess – the problem was that there was no law against what were, according to us, obvious illegal acts. So, we wrote the Law – one of the charges we brought against those on trial was conspiracy to wage aggressive war. A prosecutor could cite Bush’s first Cabinet meeting. :p
And that is to say nothing about a war conducted without Congress declaring war.
Good Lord. I do hope the next President who wants to take us to war will ponder my points.
Subject: George W. Bush has gotten into quite a mess.
Why it was wrong to invade Iraq:
- The Iraq War was inhuman, a violation of basic human decency. It’s wrong to pick a fight. Whether you’re President or a schoolkid in a schoolyard, it’s just wrong to pick a fight – morally, ethically, against your religion, whatever. Something tells me that Bush has never been a schoolkid in a schoolyard. :p
- The Iraq War was not in our interest – the threat was NOT clear and imminent. Oh, I, too, was scared shitless of the prospect of a mushroom cloud. Now, if Saddam’s sons had bought plane tickets for New York and wanted to check “Atomic Bomb” into luggage, I would have signed up to ride a tank into Baghdad – indeed, I said at the time that it was irresponsible and reckless to wait for the U.N…. if the threat was so clear and imminent. I also said at the time that, the first time Bush is wrong about WMD, it will be more difficult to invade another country – even if there is better evidence against that other country. But, as we now know, there was no reason to be sacred shitless – shame on Bush for his disregard of honesty and the truth.
Of course, Bush will say – as he has already done – that the clear and imminent threat was a “gathering storm.” Let’s see:: 1. Saddam was a bad man. 2. Saddam, one day, might possibly get some bad weapons. 3. A bad man with bad weapons might possibly be a bad situation. Does anybody outside of the Vice-President’s office still follow that logic?
- The Iraq War was a distraction from and a drain on the War on Terror. As I feared, we lost our focus on the enemy who attacked us, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Now, we are bleeding to death. What happens if Cuba invades Florida, if Al-Qaeda sets up camps in the Sudan, if terrorists hit a U.S. ship in a Yemen port, if the London subway is bombed, if North Korea invades South Korea?
- The Iraq War was illegal. I know that many right-wing nuts have no respect for international law. But the ultimate irony is that we are violating the very international law we wrote. America used to have ideals and values which we proudly wrote down. See, after World War II, we decided to have trials to hold peeps accountable for that mess – the problem was that there was no law against what were, according to us, obvious illegal acts. So, we wrote the Law – one of the charges we brought against those on trial was conspiracy to wage aggressive war. A prosecutor could cite Bush’s first Cabinet meeting. :p
And that is to say nothing about a war conducted without Congress declaring war.
Good Lord. I do hope the next President who wants to take us to war will ponder my points.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Post #42
Subject: The Emperor has no clothes, and he is whistling through the graveyard! :p
What will George W. Bush do with the Iraq Study Group report? He will use it as political cover, saying that he tried the bipartisan approach but Iran would not talk – therefore, Bush will say, Iran and the Democrats are to blame for the mess stirred up by the media in Iraq.
What Bush fails to understand is that the whole policy of pre-emptive war – a war to prevent war – is wrong. Is George Orwell working in the White House?
~ Insert your favorite drunken-frat-boy-as-President joke here. ~
As Pat Buchanan said on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show the other night, “I don‘t think the problem is simply not enough troops for the occupation. I think the idea from the beginning of going in there and going to rebuild and reconstitute and remake and reshape this ancient country based on American ideas was utopian to begin with.”
And doomed to failure. Five years, ten years, twenty years – eventually, the Iraqis will throw off the shackles of occupation. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) on the House floor four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?" The other day, in an article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, Baldwin said, "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."
Of course, it was a blank – the whole neo-con world view is lazy, shallow. From my Post #40, from Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
From that Washington Post article, the incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke four years ago stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
From that same Washington Post article, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar. "They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. From the Iraq Study Group report, “As the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. … neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized." A real leader would admit his mistakes and try to correct them. I think all we’ll see from this President is naked back-flips through the graveyard. :p
Subject: The Emperor has no clothes, and he is whistling through the graveyard! :p
What will George W. Bush do with the Iraq Study Group report? He will use it as political cover, saying that he tried the bipartisan approach but Iran would not talk – therefore, Bush will say, Iran and the Democrats are to blame for the mess stirred up by the media in Iraq.
What Bush fails to understand is that the whole policy of pre-emptive war – a war to prevent war – is wrong. Is George Orwell working in the White House?
~ Insert your favorite drunken-frat-boy-as-President joke here. ~
As Pat Buchanan said on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show the other night, “I don‘t think the problem is simply not enough troops for the occupation. I think the idea from the beginning of going in there and going to rebuild and reconstitute and remake and reshape this ancient country based on American ideas was utopian to begin with.”
And doomed to failure. Five years, ten years, twenty years – eventually, the Iraqis will throw off the shackles of occupation. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) on the House floor four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?" The other day, in an article by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, Baldwin said, "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."
Of course, it was a blank – the whole neo-con world view is lazy, shallow. From my Post #40, from Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
From that Washington Post article, the incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke four years ago stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
From that same Washington Post article, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar. "They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. From the Iraq Study Group report, “As the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. … neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized." A real leader would admit his mistakes and try to correct them. I think all we’ll see from this President is naked back-flips through the graveyard. :p
Friday, December 01, 2006
Post #41
Nah, nah, fib, fib –
Who lost Iraq?
George W. Bush did….
OK, grow up, children. Pat Buchanan appeared on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show the other day and said, “The United States is about to suffer an historic defeat here. We can‘t dictate the destiny of that country if we‘re going to pull out. And the way I see it is: We‘re pulling out.”
Yes, Pat, and don’t forget that it is reality that is making us pull out – not Democrats, not nutty bloggers, not Michael Moore, but the reality of Bush’s insistence of fighting this war on the cheap. Bush broke the Army.
Pat also said, “I think the United States—if you‘re not going to win the war—and we‘re not—you‘re going to have to accommodate yourself to the new reality.”
Exactly. We are not going to win. The number of troops needed now to save any kind honor is a physical impossibility – how can Bush recruit more troops when he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table? At least, we’re safe from Al-Qaeda in Argentina. :p
But how about a little honor by following Joe Biden’s plan? Pat said, “I think it‘s a plan that looks very good on paper, but I think that it‘s been bypassed by events. I think, in 2003-2004, the United States—it was a unipolar situation. The United States was the big power in Iraq, in all parts of it; I don‘t think that‘s true anymore.”
Yes. Events have passed us by. Our troops are bogged down in a civil war. I take the opposite view of Bill O. – I think it’s unpatriotic to bury your head in the sand. We have lost. To stay the course now is nothing short of murderous.
Nah, nah, fib, fib –
Who lost Iraq?
George W. Bush did….
OK, grow up, children. Pat Buchanan appeared on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show the other day and said, “The United States is about to suffer an historic defeat here. We can‘t dictate the destiny of that country if we‘re going to pull out. And the way I see it is: We‘re pulling out.”
Yes, Pat, and don’t forget that it is reality that is making us pull out – not Democrats, not nutty bloggers, not Michael Moore, but the reality of Bush’s insistence of fighting this war on the cheap. Bush broke the Army.
Pat also said, “I think the United States—if you‘re not going to win the war—and we‘re not—you‘re going to have to accommodate yourself to the new reality.”
Exactly. We are not going to win. The number of troops needed now to save any kind honor is a physical impossibility – how can Bush recruit more troops when he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table? At least, we’re safe from Al-Qaeda in Argentina. :p
But how about a little honor by following Joe Biden’s plan? Pat said, “I think it‘s a plan that looks very good on paper, but I think that it‘s been bypassed by events. I think, in 2003-2004, the United States—it was a unipolar situation. The United States was the big power in Iraq, in all parts of it; I don‘t think that‘s true anymore.”
Yes. Events have passed us by. Our troops are bogged down in a civil war. I take the opposite view of Bill O. – I think it’s unpatriotic to bury your head in the sand. We have lost. To stay the course now is nothing short of murderous.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Post #40
Subject: We don’t have a dog in this fight.
From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:” “Even after 9/11, Americans were skeptical of marching to Baghdad until we were told Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and probably intended to use them on us. Americans had to be lied into war. … Americans … want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences. … But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. If one of those consequences is Impeachment, so be it. And, yes, I’m talking about George W. Bush and those in Congress who voted for the “blank check.” And de-neo-con! :p
Subject: We don’t have a dog in this fight.
From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
As Pat Buchanan, http://theamericancause.org/ , said in his November 14, 2006 column “Looking for the exit ramp:” “Even after 9/11, Americans were skeptical of marching to Baghdad until we were told Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and probably intended to use them on us. Americans had to be lied into war. … Americans … want out of this war and are willing to take the consequences. … But those consequences are going to be ugly and enduring. That is what happens to nations that commit historic blunders.”
Good Lord, people. This is getting so old. Let’s get out Iraq… now. Rest our troops for other, more important battles in the War on Terror. Let’s go ahead and face the consequences of “losing” a war that we shouldn’t have started in the first place. If one of those consequences is Impeachment, so be it. And, yes, I’m talking about George W. Bush and those in Congress who voted for the “blank check.” And de-neo-con! :p
Friday, November 24, 2006
Post #39
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Subject: Iraq Update
On Sunday, November 19, 2006, Senator Joe Biden's Op-Ed on Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission, "The Minimum Necessary," appeared in the Washington Post. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY
As the Baker-Hamilton Commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the President and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.
[Good Lord. The George W. Bush administration will use the Commission for political cover – that is, they will blame Democrats and Bush’s father’s cronies for “losing” Iraq. But wait – isn’t that a cynical view, that Bush would make politics a higher priority than what is good for America? Tell the families of the American citizens who starved to death in America while Bush played the guitar at a political rally what Bush’s priorities are. Nero fiddled – Bush strummed….p]
Ouir current policy in Iraq is a failure. We are past the point of an open-ended commitment. We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer -- though it may become a necessity -- just to go with no concern for what follows. The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind.
[Who cares if there is chaos in Iraq? I don’t – as long as there are no terrorist training camps set up. Who cares if Iran invades to get a piece of the pie? Again, I don’t. Oh, sure, we screwed it up – it’d be nice for us to fix it. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that we bring our troops home, rest ‘em, resupply ‘em and send ‘em out to hunt down and destroy terrorist training camps and to topple governments that harbor em – why not finish in Afghanistan? Well, I’ll give all of Biden’s article here – it’s nice, a hell of a lot better than “Stay the Course,” but his plan is not really necessary.]
Six months ago Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I proposed a detailed answer to that question….. We had two fundamental premises: first, that the main challenge in Iraq is sectarian strife, for which there is no military solution; second, to putting all of our hopes on building a strong central government cannot pay off because there is no trust within or of the government and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic services to the Iraqi people.
We argued instead for a strong federal system, as provided for in the Iraqi constitution, that gives its main groups breathing room in regions while preserving a central government to deal with truly common concerns; a fair sharing of oil revenue to make those regions economically viable; a jobs program to deny the militia new recruits, and a major diplomatic effort to secure support for a political settlement from Iraq's neighbors.
Doing all those things would enable most of our troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to contend with concentrations of terrorists.
Baker-Hamilton need not embrace the details of our plan. But to win broad support, it must contend with three points central to our plan and to the prescriptions of most senior Democratic leaders.
First, Baker-Hamilton must tackle the issue of U.S. troop deployments. Most Democrats believe we should begin the phased redeployment of our troops in the coming months but not set a hard deadline for their withdrawal. We would refocus the mission of those who remain on counterterrorism, training, logistics and force protection.
The best way to get the Iraqis to concentrate on making the hard political decisions and compromises is to make clear to them that the presence of our troops in their present large numbers is not open-ended. Even if it made strategic sense to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq beyond next year, we could not do so without doing real damage to the volunteer military: sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours, extending deployment times from 12 to 18 months, ending the practice of a year at home between deployments, fully mobilizing the Guard and Reserves, and returning demobilized soldiers to Iraq through a back-door draft.
Second, Baker-Hamilton must propose a clear political road map for Iraq. Democrats agree that as we redeploy we must exert maximum pressure on the Iraqis for a sustainable political settlement that deals with federalism, sharing oil revenue and the militias. Redeployment alone is not a plan -- it is a means to help bring about the political settlement needed if we are to avoid a full-blown civil war and regional conflict.
Third, Baker-Hamilton must speak to the engagement of Iraq's neighbors. Democrats would convene an international conference and stand up an oversight group of major countries to support a political settlement in Iraq -- or, if chaos ensues anyway, to help contain its fallout within Iraq. There can be no sustainable peace in Iraq without the support of its neighbors, including Iran, Syria and Turkey. All major Iraqi factions should be included in the conference -- and, as at the Dayton Conference for Bosnia, we should keep them there until all agree to a way forward.
[Aaahhh – heady days in Tehran…. :p]
At the same time, simply convening a conference is not enough. We need a clear plan for our troops, a political strategy for Iraq and a mechanism like the oversight group to hold the neighbors to their commitments. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission addresses these three issues in detail, it can meet Americans' growing expectations. It also can help inform the critical debate on Iraq that I intend to hold in the Senate Foreign Relations ommittee, in close collaboration with my Republican counterpart, Sen. Richard Lugar. These intensive and extensive hearings will put a light on what options remain for America to start bringing our troops home without trading a dictator for chaos.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Post #38
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Subject: Who lost Iraq? George W. Bush
The missteps of our President and the civilian leadership in Washington can – and do – fill books. From not having enough troops to begin with to not handing over sovereignty soon enough, you’d think this President had come into office with no foreign policy experience! :p
Blame whoever you want. Dick Cheney who promised we’d be greeted as liberators, Don Rumsfeld who ran over the military, Tommy Franks who said we had enough troops, Colin Powell who want along with this mess, Hillary who voted the “blank check.” The list goes on and on. But the bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. When History is written, Bush will get the blame.
Really, tho, that’s not fair – Bush did not “lose” Iraq, it was never his to “win.”
Please, somebody give me a historical example of a “democracy project” that worked. I can’t think of one. People are not automatically inclined to democracy. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted an educated society. Democracy is a wonderful thing – for mature educated societies that embrace it. But people don’t like being bombed. The fact of that simple truth being overlooked will mean that History will judge Bush as having “lost” Iraq.
Yep, I’ve said elsewhere that the War on Terror will last generations – 40 years – and cost 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and will be won in an unforeseen way. I still believe that – that‘s the War on Terror, NOT the foolishness in Iraq. Iraq has been a drain on the War on Terror.
Suppose Al-Qaeda sets up camps in France tomorrow and the French government harbors them. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good thing Bush has uttered in six years. Please, bring our soldiers back home. Free our troops up to fight and destroy the real enemy of the US – Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda!
Remember 9/11!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)