Bush Again Changing Rationale for Iraq War?

Let's see how many reasons Bush has given for the United States going to war with Iraq. First it was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction because Saddam might give such weapons to terrorists. Never mind that there was no record of any co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda or that no Iraqis had been involved in the horrible events of 9-11.

Then, when we found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for the war was to establish a democratic Arab state in the middle-east that would apparently serve as a model for Arabs and serve as an ally of the United States. Never mind that no one bother to find out that if Iraq was a democratic state whether it would actually become an ally of the United States or whether a democratic state could exist in a society where there were sectarian tensions between two or three large groups of people.

Now, after we see that, yes, the Iraqis aren't going to get along with each other and are fighting a civil war, the rationale given by Bubble-Boy changes again. Now, according to a statement quoted in the Washington Post, "Our main enemy is al-Qaeda and its affiliates". Of course, we won't mention that al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we went there in the first place.

Successful wars are fought by America when the goals are very clear. Can anyone imagine FDR coming up with three rationales in four years for WWII? He didn't need to because everyone knew what the goals were and, more importantly, how those goals related to American security. Bush either didn't have a clear goal when he started this mess or he was lying about his real goal, or both.

Second point about successful wars fought by the United States: someone else started them, not us. Unsuccessful wars are fought by the U.S. when we intervene in someone else' fight, as in Vietnam, or when we start the fight, as in Iraq. You would think that someone would have pointed this out to BB before now, but then, thanks to the Bush administration, the media, and yes, a lot of Democratic politicians, we never had a real debate about a war with Iraq.

You can read the whole Washington Post article by clicking here.

George "Bush Enabler" Voinovich Trying to Have it Both Ways

This is from an article about Bubble-Boy's veto that appeared in the Washington Post online edition: Some kind of compromise has to be worked out between the administration and the Democrats," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio). "That's how it's done. Everybody holds their nose, and maybe a couple of times vomits, but you get it done."

This is classic Voinovich. He won't do a damn thing to hold Bush accountable, but he will run to the media and give them a quote so it looks like he is being "moderate" and "reasonable". This way the inside the beltway pundits and talking heads will praise him as a "moderate Republican." Note, however, that when the chips are down, Voinovich will be found supporting Bush and helping him sustain his veto of the Democrats' funding bill. (You can read the whole article by clicking here.)

So-called "moderate" Republicans like Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, and sometimes McCain in the Senate and their counterparts in the House like Christopher Shays have perfected this technique. They talk "moderate" and vote to support Bush's agenda. They hope that the public won't catch on, and for a long time, they didn't, but that may be changing. The defeat of Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island shows that time may be running out for those GOP politicians playing this game. While the Washington chattering classes may not figure it out, voters are starting to understand the difference between supporting Bush and supporting the troops. You support the troops by getting them out of the middle of this Iraqi civil war.

Revolt of the Kool-Aid Drinkers

GOP Senators, especially those who are up for re-election in 2008, are signing on to a resolution being drafted by Sen. John Warner, R-VA, which will put them on record as opposing the escalation of troops being implemented by Bush. GOP Senators who are now on record as opposing Bush's escalation include Hagel of Nebraska, Snowe of Maine, Coleman of Minn, Collins of Maine, Warner of Virginia, and Smith of Oregon. (You can read the Washington Post article about Warner's resolution by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)

This means that Republican members of Congress, who have marched in lockstep with Bubble-Boy while he took them over the proverbial cliff, are beginning to see that the Republican Party could sustain even more losses in 2008 unless it begins to distance itself from the Bushies. Of course, we have to wonder if they hadn't lost control of Congress whether they would be seeing the light, but, maybe we are just being cynical.

Sacrifice Increases for Army Reserve & National Guard

The U.S. Army is increasing the time that a Army Reserves or National Guard may be called for service in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In the past the Army had a policy that the Reserve and Guard could not be called for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq for more than 24 cumulative months. The new policy is that they may not be called for duty for more than 24 consecutive months, but there is no limit on the total amount of time they may be called. The Pentagon spokesperson said, however, that the Pentagon wants to limit deployments to 12 consecutive months. (Click on the entry's title to read the whole article.)

Let's see: Bush won't tax the rich to pay for his war, he won't call upon his supporters to join the Army to fight the war, but he will extend the amount of time that citizen-soldiers are ordered to fight in the war. Yep, that's Bubble-Boy's idea of shared sacrifice.

Is Bush Losing Utah?

According to a poll by the Salt Lake City Tribune only 42% of Utah residents support Bush's handling of the war. Only 44% support a escalation of the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Just six months ago support for Bush on Iraq was over 50% in Utah. If Bubble-Boy is losing Utah, the GOP is in BIG trouble. _____________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read the Tribune story about the poll.