Free Ride for Republicans to Attack the Military

Some pretty angry, strong opinions being expressed here.

Washington Post "fact checker" here.

Money for War in the Middle East - No Problem

If war is going to spread throughout the Middle East it won't be for a lack of military aid from the USA.

The United States framed its commitment last month to more than 60 billion dollars in weapons sales to the Middle East as a measure against Iran. The packaging is intended to blunt Arab objections to an aid boost to Israel, and to win congressional support for military aid to Arab countries.

Is there any concern that someday we might be fighting the very countries that we have supplied with weapons (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan maybe). And for every advanced weapon we sell to these middle east allies, Israel get even more advanced weapons to counteract them.

Saudi Arabia gets $20 billion worth of weapons.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was more blunt in his criticism of the Saudis.

He said the United States had permitted the Saudis to "get off the hook" on failure to counter terrorism. "They have to prove they are not in a secret coalition with terrorists" to harm Americans, Rohrabacher said.

And what about the sale of $5 billion worth of advanced F-16 fighters to our ally Pakistan? Are there any concerns about Pakistan transfering US technology to other "third parties"? Has Pakistan ever done anything like that in the past? I wonder how our ally India feels about that? It's not like we need to be concerned about these two nuclear weapon armed countries.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Bush administration put as much effort into diplomacy in the Middle East?

Maliki's Fault

Failure in Iraq is all Prime Minister Maliki's fault. That is what both Democrats and Republicans are now saying. So can we bring the troops home now?

Is Iraq Like Vietnam?

Yes and no. Read this article by Prof. Robert Dalleck.

In my opinion the wars are/were similar in that neither of them is/was winnable.

"Wounded" in Iraq

An Op-Ed by Bob Herbert in todays NYT (subscription needed) really opened my eyes concerning our "wounded" soldier from the Iraq War. What do you think of when you hear a soldier was wounded. Shot in the arm or leg? How about this version from a wounded soldier?

“I was like, ‘Oh, we got hit. We got hit.’ And then I had blood on my face and the flies were landing all over my face. So I wiped my face to get rid of the flies. And that is when I noticed that my fingertip was gone. So I was like, ‘Oh. O.K.’

“So that is when I started really assessing myself. I was like, ‘That’s not bad.’ And then I turned my hand over, and I noticed that this chunk of my hand was gone. So I was like, ‘O.K., still not bad. I can live with that.’

“And then when I went to wipe the flies on my face with my left hand, there was nothing there. So I was like, ‘Uh, that’s gone.’ And then I looked down and I saw that my legs were gone. And then they had kind of forced my head back down to the ground, hoping that I wouldn’t see.”

This was from a series of interviews of wounded soldiers for an HBO documentary called "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq". Be sure and watch the promo video.

Iraq War

Stop Blaming Mr. Bush

There is an interesting idea voiced by none other than Paul Krugman in the NYT (must pay to read).

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Krugman has a point. Bush is just being the only Bush he knows how to be. What about all his enablers like Sen. Lugar and McCain and Mr. Krystal? The Republican Senators that blindly support Bush are now the ones that bear the brunt of the blame for refusing to change course on our Iraq War policy.

In the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson asks why is the President so happy?

One hopes the leader of the free world hasn't really, truly lost touch with objective reality. But one does have to wonder.

In Bush world, he didn't start the Iraq War. He actually tried to solve the problem diplomatically. It was Saddam's decision to make.

That means Bush is claiming that Saddam Hussein "chose" the invasion -- and, ultimately, his own death -- by not showing us what he didn't have.

I believe that Bush was brought up in a world of his own reality. He has never made a mistake, nothing has ever been his fault and he sees himself as a sucessful businessman, ex-military pilot and politician. One thing G.W. Bush does have going for himself. He actually has the ear of God. Not even Abraham Lincoln had that advantage.

Brave Young War Supporters

So young yet so ill.

Huh?

Is that really what happened the other day? The Senate rejected an amendment to pull our troops out of Iraq? I guess the ignorant readers of the Washington Times (owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon)might want to believe that.....but it's a lie. What actually happened is that a minority of Republican Senators voted against allowing a vote on whether to pull out of Iraq or not (cloture vote). Why did the Republicans do that? Because a majority of Senators would vote to begin pulling troops out of Iraq. Although Bush would almost certainly veto such a bill.

I'm just wondering. Do conservatives really believe headlines like that? Do they really buy the story Tony Snow is selling in a guest editorial in USA Today?

We never argued that he (Saddam)played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity.

Does the Washington Times and Tony Snow think their readers are stupid? Surely anyone can search the internets and see that Snow is lying. How about this line in the joint resolution to authorize force in Iraq?

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Why does 40% of the population of the USA believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Snow goes on to say:

Al-Qaeda doesn't have the strength it had six years ago, but it remains committed to killing Americans.

The recently released National Intelligence Estimate seems to disagree with Tony boy.

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

And more here.

Just who are the people that buy in to this claptrap?

BTW, you want to buy a cool t-shirt? How about this awesome Uncle Sam "Fear" t-shirt from UrbanMedium?

George Bush and his Good Ideas

A quote from G.W. Bush in todays Washington Post:

"I'm not going to surrender a good and important idea before the debate really gets started,"

Oh really? Bush actually thinks he has had a good idea. Must be a first in his pitiful life.

So what's the rant about this time? Our esteemed president is against providing health insurance for an additional 3.3 million children in the USA. It costs too much! Can you believe that? Providing health coverage for poor children costs too much? The program would be paid for with an increased tax on cigarettes. The man doesn't have a soul let alone a brain.

One thing Bush is good for.....I think he is proof of common descent. He may actually be the missing link that so many anti-evolutionists claim has never been found.

A Few Words on the Latest in Politics

What are the headlines after last nights all night session in the Senate? Here is one from the NYT. "Democrats Fail to Force Vote on Iraq Pullout". But here's a question? Why wasn't the headline..."Republicans Succeed in Preventing Vote on Iraq War"?

Then the editorial explains that we are now returning to more of the politics of fear. It's worked in the past and is likely to work in the future. Six years after the attack on 9/11 and guess what....al Qaeda is a strong and as capable as ever. But why should that be a surprise when our country is being led by the most incompetent man on the planet? When will Mr. Bush decide to go after the terrorists that attacked us? Is it because he doesn't want to upset our Pakistani allies who are protecting bin Laden? Did the latest NIE say bin Laden determined to strike the USA just like the one several years ago did?

Lastly, Tom Friedman (of the Friedman unit of time), asks why our soldiers should continue fighting and dying in the summer heat of Iraq when the Iraq parliament is taking the month of August off?

So let’s get this straight: Iraqi parliamentarians, at least those not already boycotting the Parliament, will be on vacation in August so they can be cool, while young American men and women, and Iraqi Army soldiers, will be fighting in the heat in order to create a proper security environment in which Iraqi politicians can come back in September and continue squabbling while their country burns.

I don't understand why 100% of Americans don't find this situation to be so egregious that our troops should come home yesterday if not sooner.

Senate Democrats Finally Get Some Stones

Sen. Harry Reid is going to force the Republicans to really filibuster the Reed-Levin amendment. The Reed-Levin amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.2087) calls for the reduction of US troops in Iraq within 120 days of the enactment of the Act and mandates a withdrawal of most of the combat troops by April 30, 2008.

Reid will use to force 30 hours of non-stop debate on the amendment. Republicans need to filibuster this amendment because it would otherwise pass. Although, it would certainly be vetoed by Bush.

Remember less than a year ago how Republicans were clammering for "up or down" votes? Seem like they don't think the filibuster is such a bad thing now. Let's just keep in mind who is preventing votes on many Democrat-led bills.

More here including Harry Reid video.

Censure Iran and Not Saudi Arabia?

I haven't seen this in the news in the US but evidently the US Senate passed a Joe Lieberman amendment that "censures" Iran for meddling in the Iraq War.

Of course Iran is meddling in Iraq. We instituted a Shia-led government in Iraq by outing Saddam. Iran is the other major Shia country in the World. There are two thoughts on what Iran is doing in Iraq. They are helping their fellow Shia muslims take firm control of Iraq or they could be meddling in such a way that the Shia have control of Iraq but not a democratic Iraq. In any case they certainly deserve a censure as indicated by a 97-0 vote in the Senate.

Unfortunately, some see this move as a prelude to an attack on Iran.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Bush has already offered opportunity to mix it up with Iran when British hostages were being held by Iran. But cooler heads prevailed.

Sy Hersh has also reported on the desire of the Bush administration to go to war with Iran.

Senator Jim Webb is concerned that Bush will initiate action against Iran without congressional approval.

But where is the outrage towards Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

Iraq Foreign Insurgents

We hear alot today about foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. What country do you think most of these insurgents come from? Surely it must be Iran. Afterall, Sen. Joe Leiberman can't wait for us to make a preemptive (preventative) attack on Iran. Syria would be a good guess. The Bush administration would love a reason to attack Syria. And, isn't Syria the country that Saddam shipped all his weapons of mass destruction to just prior to the war?

But it's not either of those countries. The most foreign insurgents, about 45% of them, come from our good ally Saudi Arabia.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

I guess this shouldn't be too surprising since the leader of al Quada is a Saudi and it was Saudi's that attacked us on Sept. 11th. It also makes sense that Saudi's, who are primarily Sunni, want to help out the Sunni tribes in Iraq.

The Mission in Iraq

Think Progress has a good summary of the "mission" in Iraq over the years. Basically it goes like this.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE (remember mission accomplished?)

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION

CURRENTLY? It's a new mission.

Rep. Gillibrand - Opposed or In Favor of Iraq War?

A month and a half ago Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand voted to continue the Iraq War.

Now I get an email with her bragging about being calling for withdrawal of the troops.

Dear Friends,

I wanted to make sure you saw yesterday's Iraq vote in Congress. Kirsten voted to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the redeployment of U.S. combat troops within 120 days, with the goal of completion by April 1st, 2008. The bill passed 223 to 201 and marks a big step forward in forcing the President in a new direction Fresh off her trip to Iraq Kirsten was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2956 the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act."

Is it because her 'yes' vote has triggered a possible primary challenger? Morris Guller said:

“To vote ‘yes’ to supply additional funds to prolong the suffering and deaths of American troops and Iraqi citizens, to break your promise to help bring a quick end to this war … is devastating,” said Guller in a letter to Gillibrand. “You will have a primary race in ’08.”

Guller ran as an independent in 2004 and dropped out of the 2006 race where he was endorsed as the Liberal Party candidate.

Congress has only one effective way to end the Iraq War and that is the power of the purse. Bush will simply ignore and/or veto anything else.

Bush: outrageous, egregious, preposterous

What a dispicable man! He can't express even the smallest bit of disappointment or regret. Here's GW Bush on the outing of a CIA agent:

"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?"

Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove and "Scooter Libby" all had a role in "outing" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. But because none of them came to Bush and said "I did it", I guess no one is really at fault and I assume they are "being taken care of" as Bush promised. One question I've always wondered about. Why was Scooter Libby the only one to lie to the Grand Jury about what he did? I guess we'll never know.

Who's in Favor - Who's Opposed to the Surge

Find out here.

While you are surfing, go here to read why Methodist ministers are opposed to the Bush Library being built at Southern Methodist University. Bush will probably end up building his library at his ranch. There is still the question of what exactly he will place in his library.