Bubble-Boy had a statement to the press and that was that he won't promise that more troops will be coming home from Iraq this summer. This means that there will probably be around 8,000 more American troops in Iraq at the end of the "surge" than there were when the surge started. How, in any context, can this be called a success?
Maybe we are just being picky here, but wouldn't a success mean that more American troops could leave Iraq? What is success? Is success being measured by Iraqi standards or by American standards? That is, is the surge a success if it prevents Iraqi deaths or leads to American troops being withdrawn?
Maybe it is just us, but we believe that American troops should be dying for American interests, not Iraqi interests, not oil company interests, not neo-con interests, but American interests. You know, the interests of the American people as a whole.
If you look at the surge from that standpoint, then can you say it is a "success"?
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Friday, November 23, 2007
West Losing the "Other War" Against Taliban in Afghanistan
So, do you remember the Taliban? You know, the Islamist group that took over Afghanistan, provided a safe haven for bin Laden while he attacked the West, and was driven out of power in 2001 by American forces? Well, they are back and on the verge of capturing control of Afghanistan from the government that we are backing. This dreary outlook is being painted by the Guardian, a newspaper in the United Kingdom, in an article on its website dated November, 22, 2007.
Okay, so here is a historical lesson for George W. Bush and his radical right-wing nutjob supporters: You don't start one war until you have finished the first one. Napoleon learned it in Russia, Hitler learned it in Russia, and now Bush is learning it in Afghanistan and Iraq. He started his second war before he had finished the job of pacifying Afghanistan.
Sometimes, as say in WWII, when we were attacked by Japan and then both Germany and Italy declared war on us, you have to fight two wars at one time. But, unless you are forced into that position, this is a very simple concept to learn: DON'T FIGHT TWO WARS AT ONCE.
Okay, so here is a historical lesson for George W. Bush and his radical right-wing nutjob supporters: You don't start one war until you have finished the first one. Napoleon learned it in Russia, Hitler learned it in Russia, and now Bush is learning it in Afghanistan and Iraq. He started his second war before he had finished the job of pacifying Afghanistan.
Sometimes, as say in WWII, when we were attacked by Japan and then both Germany and Italy declared war on us, you have to fight two wars at one time. But, unless you are forced into that position, this is a very simple concept to learn: DON'T FIGHT TWO WARS AT ONCE.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Seymour Hersh Believes Bush Getting Ready for Iran Attack
On the New Yorker website is an article by Seymour Hersh that goes into where the Bush Administration is at regarding Iran. Hersh's article points out that the Bush Administration believes that Iran is five years away from developing a nuclear weapon and that the American public is not buying into its fear campaign against the Iranians. Therefore, what Cheney, aka Darth Vadar and Bubble-Boy want to do is attack Iran and justify it by claiming that they are protecting American troops in Iraq.
Here is an interesting quote from the article:
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.
UPDATE: Here is a link to www.pollingreport.com's page on polls about Iran. It shows that a strong majority of Americans do not want the Bush Administration to attempt military action against Iran over its nuclear program.
Here is an interesting quote from the article:
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.
UPDATE: Here is a link to www.pollingreport.com's page on polls about Iran. It shows that a strong majority of Americans do not want the Bush Administration to attempt military action against Iran over its nuclear program.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Iraq Government Has No Control Over Its Own Country
On Sunday, September 16, 2007, employees of the Blackwater Company who provide security for Americans in Iraq were accused of killing several Iraqis. This is not the first time that Blackwater has been involved in such incidents. Yet, under regulations adopted when the provisional coalition authority ran Iraq, employees of such firms cannot be prosecuted for such attacks.
Not only is the Iraq government barred from prosecuting Americans who, in their opinion use unjustifiable force, but the Iraqi government is not in a position to disarm sectarian militias. This means that the Iraqi government is in the unenviable position of having to tolerate armed forces it can't control in its own country.
What this means to the United States is that a government that can't protect its citizens from violence won't have those citizens' respect. It also means that if getting our troops out of Iraq depends on political reconciliation among the Iraqis, they are going to be there for a very long time.
Not only is the Iraq government barred from prosecuting Americans who, in their opinion use unjustifiable force, but the Iraqi government is not in a position to disarm sectarian militias. This means that the Iraqi government is in the unenviable position of having to tolerate armed forces it can't control in its own country.
What this means to the United States is that a government that can't protect its citizens from violence won't have those citizens' respect. It also means that if getting our troops out of Iraq depends on political reconciliation among the Iraqis, they are going to be there for a very long time.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Biden Criticizes Petraeus on Sunday Talk Show
This Sunday,September 9, 2007, Senator Joe Biden criticized General Petraeus's assessment on how things are going in Iraq. Biden appeared on the NBC's Meet the Press. Challenging Petraeus is crucial to Democrats winning the public relations campaign that the Bush Administration has been running since the Congressional recess in August. The Bushies know that Bubble-Boy has no credibility with the public on Iraq, so they are hiding behind Petraeus, hoping that Democrats will not challenge his assessment on Iraq.
Why does Bush have to hide behind Petraeus? Because as Biden said on Meet the Press,"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave." As Biden went on to note, Bush's plan is to leave Iraq for the next President to handle. All his life, other people have bailed Bush out of his mistakes. He has been allowed to avoid the draft, bankrupt businesses, and invade a country and not pay any price for his screw-ups. Being George W. Bush means never having to take responsibility.
Why does Bush have to hide behind Petraeus? Because as Biden said on Meet the Press,"This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave." As Biden went on to note, Bush's plan is to leave Iraq for the next President to handle. All his life, other people have bailed Bush out of his mistakes. He has been allowed to avoid the draft, bankrupt businesses, and invade a country and not pay any price for his screw-ups. Being George W. Bush means never having to take responsibility.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
When Pat Buchanan Starts Making Sense.....
you know you are in some seriously deep do-do. Read the column linked to in this entry's title by P.B. He makes more sense on Iran than anyone in this administration. Is this an endorsement of Buchanan's views? No, but his point that no one in the Democratically controlled Congress is stopping W's drive toward war with Iran is a very valid point.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Newsweek Article on Ethnic Cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad
Newsweek has an interesting article on how Shia Muslims are forcing Sunni Muslims out of Baghdad. Here is a quote from the article:
The surge of U.S. troops—meant in part to halt the sectarian cleansing of the Iraqi capital—has hardly stemmed the problem. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July was slightly higher than in February, when the surge began. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has more than doubled to 1.1 million since the beginning of the year, nearly 200,000 of those in Baghdad governorate alone. Rafiq Tschannen, chief of the Iraq mission for the International Organization for Migration, says that the fighting that accompanied the influx of U.S. troops actually "has increased the IDPs to some extent." (IDP refers to internally displaced persons.)
So what about the success of the surge that the right-wing and the major media outlets keep telling us about? Here is an explanation about that from the same article:
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won. "If you look at pre-February 2006, there were only a couple of areas in the city that were unambiguously Shia," says a U.S. official in Baghdad who is familiar with the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record. "That's definitely not the case anymore." The official says that "the majority, more than half" of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shiite-dominated, a judgment echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: "And very few are mixed." In places like Amel, pockets of Sunnis live in fear, surrounded by a sea of Shiites. In most of the remaining Sunni neighborhoods, residents are trapped behind great concrete barricades for their own protection.
This is a very interesting article, and also very sad, because it shows how much havoc our failure to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq has caused for Iraqis. Obviously, things were going to change once Saddam was removed. Sunnis are a relatively small portion of Iraq's population but had been exercising all of the political power. Just as obviously, though, Iraq didn't have to be like this.
According to this article in the Washington Post, taken from a new book that is coming out about Bush he thought that Americans would be greeted as liberators. This was based on three conversations he had with dissident Iraqis before the invasion. Here is a quote from that article:
Several of Bush's top advisers believe that the president's view of postwar Iraq was significantly affected by his meeting with three Iraqi exiles in the Oval Office several months before the 2003 invasion, Draper reports.
He writes that all three exiles agreed without qualification that "Iraq would greet American forces with enthusiasm. Ethnic and religious tensions would dissolve with the collapse of Saddam's regime. And democracy would spring forth with little effort -- particularly in light of Bush's commitment to rebuild the country." We now see how useful that information was for the United States.
The surge of U.S. troops—meant in part to halt the sectarian cleansing of the Iraqi capital—has hardly stemmed the problem. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July was slightly higher than in February, when the surge began. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has more than doubled to 1.1 million since the beginning of the year, nearly 200,000 of those in Baghdad governorate alone. Rafiq Tschannen, chief of the Iraq mission for the International Organization for Migration, says that the fighting that accompanied the influx of U.S. troops actually "has increased the IDPs to some extent." (IDP refers to internally displaced persons.)
So what about the success of the surge that the right-wing and the major media outlets keep telling us about? Here is an explanation about that from the same article:
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won. "If you look at pre-February 2006, there were only a couple of areas in the city that were unambiguously Shia," says a U.S. official in Baghdad who is familiar with the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record. "That's definitely not the case anymore." The official says that "the majority, more than half" of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shiite-dominated, a judgment echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: "And very few are mixed." In places like Amel, pockets of Sunnis live in fear, surrounded by a sea of Shiites. In most of the remaining Sunni neighborhoods, residents are trapped behind great concrete barricades for their own protection.
This is a very interesting article, and also very sad, because it shows how much havoc our failure to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq has caused for Iraqis. Obviously, things were going to change once Saddam was removed. Sunnis are a relatively small portion of Iraq's population but had been exercising all of the political power. Just as obviously, though, Iraq didn't have to be like this.
According to this article in the Washington Post, taken from a new book that is coming out about Bush he thought that Americans would be greeted as liberators. This was based on three conversations he had with dissident Iraqis before the invasion. Here is a quote from that article:
Several of Bush's top advisers believe that the president's view of postwar Iraq was significantly affected by his meeting with three Iraqi exiles in the Oval Office several months before the 2003 invasion, Draper reports.
He writes that all three exiles agreed without qualification that "Iraq would greet American forces with enthusiasm. Ethnic and religious tensions would dissolve with the collapse of Saddam's regime. And democracy would spring forth with little effort -- particularly in light of Bush's commitment to rebuild the country." We now see how useful that information was for the United States.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
New York Times Article on How War in Afghanistan Went Bad
The New York Times, in its Sunday edition for August 12, 2007, takes a look at the war in Afghanistan and how it went bad. As usual a deadly combination of American hubris, Bush incompetence, and blind focus on Iraq offers an explanation. This is a quote from the article:
President Bush’s critics have long contended that the Iraq war has diminished America’s effort in Afghanistan, which the administration has denied, but an examination of how the policy unfolded within the administration reveals a deep divide over how to proceed in Afghanistan and a series of decisions that at times seemed to relegate it to an afterthought as Iraq unraveled.
Statements from the White House, including from the president, in support of Afghanistan were resolute, but behind them was a halting, sometimes reluctant commitment to solving Afghanistan’s myriad problems, according to dozens of interviews in the United States, at NATO headquarters in Brussels and in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.
One of the amazing things about Democratic statements before the Iraqi war vote in 2002 is why prominent Democrats didn't use the theme that Bush wanted to start a second war before he had won the first one. Such a theme would have made sense to the American people and would have been instinctively understood. How many of us heard our parents tell us when we were growing up not to start a new project until the old one was finished? Yet, although it is hard to remember all that was said about Iraq back in the fall of 2002, Democrats using that theme doesn't stick out.
Granted, given the lock-step approach that the Republicans who controlled Congress took when it came to backing Bush back in 2002, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in policy terms. It could have, however, made a difference in political terms. Such a theme would have given Democrats a way to distinguish themselves from Bush on national security and might have limited Democratic losses in the 2002 mid-term elections. It also would have set up Democrats for the 2004 presidential campaign which Bush and Rove planned to make about national security.
President Bush’s critics have long contended that the Iraq war has diminished America’s effort in Afghanistan, which the administration has denied, but an examination of how the policy unfolded within the administration reveals a deep divide over how to proceed in Afghanistan and a series of decisions that at times seemed to relegate it to an afterthought as Iraq unraveled.
Statements from the White House, including from the president, in support of Afghanistan were resolute, but behind them was a halting, sometimes reluctant commitment to solving Afghanistan’s myriad problems, according to dozens of interviews in the United States, at NATO headquarters in Brussels and in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.
One of the amazing things about Democratic statements before the Iraqi war vote in 2002 is why prominent Democrats didn't use the theme that Bush wanted to start a second war before he had won the first one. Such a theme would have made sense to the American people and would have been instinctively understood. How many of us heard our parents tell us when we were growing up not to start a new project until the old one was finished? Yet, although it is hard to remember all that was said about Iraq back in the fall of 2002, Democrats using that theme doesn't stick out.
Granted, given the lock-step approach that the Republicans who controlled Congress took when it came to backing Bush back in 2002, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in policy terms. It could have, however, made a difference in political terms. Such a theme would have given Democrats a way to distinguish themselves from Bush on national security and might have limited Democratic losses in the 2002 mid-term elections. It also would have set up Democrats for the 2004 presidential campaign which Bush and Rove planned to make about national security.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Aren't American Bridges Just as Important as Iraqi Bridges?
In this article in the Nation magazine, John Nichols points out that the Federal Government has delayed for years in repairing America's infrastructure. This is a quote from the article:
But there is simply no question that the steady neglect of the crying need for repair and improvement of bridges, levees and other vital pieces of the nation's infrastructure, and the resolute stinginess of a federal government that is much better at finding money to repair the Middle East than the middle west, makes disasters more likely to occur and more extreme in their consequences.
Meanwhile, the cost of the Iraq War, according to a website called "Cost of War", run by the National Priorities Project, is now over 448 Billion dollars. Think about what that money would have done if it would have been spent in America fixing our roads, bridges, levees, dams, etc. Think about the jobs it would have created and the businesses that it would have supported.
Which brings us to this point: Democrats need to point out to Americans that it is past time for us to focus on our own country. We should stop trying to rebuild the Middle East and start rebuilding the Midwest, and the North, South, East, and West while we are at it. We have an administration that seems to think that helping Iraqis rebuild their country is more important than helping Americans rebuild our country.
But there is simply no question that the steady neglect of the crying need for repair and improvement of bridges, levees and other vital pieces of the nation's infrastructure, and the resolute stinginess of a federal government that is much better at finding money to repair the Middle East than the middle west, makes disasters more likely to occur and more extreme in their consequences.
Meanwhile, the cost of the Iraq War, according to a website called "Cost of War", run by the National Priorities Project, is now over 448 Billion dollars. Think about what that money would have done if it would have been spent in America fixing our roads, bridges, levees, dams, etc. Think about the jobs it would have created and the businesses that it would have supported.
Which brings us to this point: Democrats need to point out to Americans that it is past time for us to focus on our own country. We should stop trying to rebuild the Middle East and start rebuilding the Midwest, and the North, South, East, and West while we are at it. We have an administration that seems to think that helping Iraqis rebuild their country is more important than helping Americans rebuild our country.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Iraqis Refuse Possession of U.S. Build Reconstruction Projects
If you needed yet another example of how much of a mess the Bush Administration has created in Iraq, just click on the link in this entry's title. You will read a story from the New York Times that appeared in the Saturday, July 28, 2007, edition. It concerns a report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency. This is a quote from that article:
Iraq's national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.
The article notes that the Bush Administration often cites reconstruction projects as evidence that Iraqis are making strides toward establishing a working government even though there is a civil war brewing. Yet, as this report shows, constructing such projects are only the beginning. You have to have someone who will take control of them and use them.
This quote from the article probably best sums up the situation:
“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.”
Why has it been a near-total disaster from the beginning? Because under Bush ideology trumps everything, including experience, education, sound public policy, and training. Bush is a true believer and he surrounds himself with true believers.
He apparently believed that once he overthrew Saddam Hussein everything would just fall into place, as if by magic. Consequently there was no planning for what happened after Hussein was removed from power. American soldiers are paying with their lives, and American taxpayers with their money, for Bubble-Boy's folly. Of course, just like every other screw-up in Bush's life, he will leave office and other people will have to clean up his mess.
Iraq's national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.
The article notes that the Bush Administration often cites reconstruction projects as evidence that Iraqis are making strides toward establishing a working government even though there is a civil war brewing. Yet, as this report shows, constructing such projects are only the beginning. You have to have someone who will take control of them and use them.
This quote from the article probably best sums up the situation:
“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.”
Why has it been a near-total disaster from the beginning? Because under Bush ideology trumps everything, including experience, education, sound public policy, and training. Bush is a true believer and he surrounds himself with true believers.
He apparently believed that once he overthrew Saddam Hussein everything would just fall into place, as if by magic. Consequently there was no planning for what happened after Hussein was removed from power. American soldiers are paying with their lives, and American taxpayers with their money, for Bubble-Boy's folly. Of course, just like every other screw-up in Bush's life, he will leave office and other people will have to clean up his mess.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Jordan's King Predicted Three Civil Wars in Middle East in November, 2006
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the transcript of an appearance by King Abdullah of Jordon on ABC's This Week on November 26, 2006. During that appearance he predicted three civil wars in the Middle East in 2007. One in Iraq, one in Lebanon and one in the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Now, with 2007 not yet halfway over, we have seen two of the three civil wars take place, or rather, the continuing civil war in Iraq has been joined by the civil war between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian Authority. Only Lebanon has not yet seen an outbreak of civil war.
Yet, despite this record of devastation across a crucial area of the world, Tony Snow today, June 18, 2007, said it was "hard to say" whether the Iraq War has helped the peace process in the Middle East or whether the removal of Hussein has helped stabliize the Middle East, a claim made by the Bubble-Boy before the War.
Well, here is a hint, Tony, Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war, which wasn't happening before we invaded and took down its government. The Palestinian Authority is no longer functioning as any kind of government, and Hamas, a terrorist supporting political party, controls the Gaza Strip. Lebanon saw a war last year between Hamas and Israel and could see a civil war this year between Hamas and Christian factions. So, clearly Tony, this War hasn't done a thing to encourage the peace process in the Middle East or helped stabilize the Middle East.
The truth is that we are going to be dealing with the blowback from Bush's insanity for the next 50 years. Think how many terrorists we are creating in Iraq. How many Islamic terrorists are being generated by our involvement in Iraq. How many Iraqis are going end up hating the United States because our military has killed their husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, and other relatives.
Clearly not all of the violence can be traced back to the Iraq War, but it is just as clear that the Iraq War is contributing to great instability in the region. Since 2003 there has been violence in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran has gained influence with organizations such as Hamas. Meanwhile, there is continued violence in Afghanistan and a resurgence of the Taliban in that country, you know, the people that bin Laden to use their country as a terrorist training camp. And because of Bubble-Boy Bush and Cheney the Duck Hunter, America is right smack dab in the middle of it all.
Yet, despite this record of devastation across a crucial area of the world, Tony Snow today, June 18, 2007, said it was "hard to say" whether the Iraq War has helped the peace process in the Middle East or whether the removal of Hussein has helped stabliize the Middle East, a claim made by the Bubble-Boy before the War.
Well, here is a hint, Tony, Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war, which wasn't happening before we invaded and took down its government. The Palestinian Authority is no longer functioning as any kind of government, and Hamas, a terrorist supporting political party, controls the Gaza Strip. Lebanon saw a war last year between Hamas and Israel and could see a civil war this year between Hamas and Christian factions. So, clearly Tony, this War hasn't done a thing to encourage the peace process in the Middle East or helped stabilize the Middle East.
The truth is that we are going to be dealing with the blowback from Bush's insanity for the next 50 years. Think how many terrorists we are creating in Iraq. How many Islamic terrorists are being generated by our involvement in Iraq. How many Iraqis are going end up hating the United States because our military has killed their husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, and other relatives.
Clearly not all of the violence can be traced back to the Iraq War, but it is just as clear that the Iraq War is contributing to great instability in the region. Since 2003 there has been violence in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran has gained influence with organizations such as Hamas. Meanwhile, there is continued violence in Afghanistan and a resurgence of the Taliban in that country, you know, the people that bin Laden to use their country as a terrorist training camp. And because of Bubble-Boy Bush and Cheney the Duck Hunter, America is right smack dab in the middle of it all.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
News Media Not Picking Up on Snow's Iraq-South Korea Comparison
Yesterday we posted an entry about Tony Snow's comments at a press briefing comparing Iraq to South Korea and stating that Bubble-Boy sees American troops in Iraq much as they are in South Korea. That is a very significant comparison. We have been in South Korea for over 50 years and we have a mutual defense pact with the South Koreans. If you take the South Korean model to its logical extreme, we end up with thousands of American troops stationed in Iraq and we have a mutual defense pact to protect Iraq from attack by its neighbors, presumably Iran.
All this, of course, without any debate so far in America as to whether the American people want this kind of commitment. The Bush Administration has never told the American people until yesterday, over four years after the overthrow of Hussein, that it sees our role in Iraq as being similar to our role in South Korea. If Bush had told the American people in 2003 that the overthrow of Hussein would cost this country over 3000 American military lives, over 500 billion dollars, and then would be followed by a potential 50 year commitment to Iraq, the American people would have demanded that the war not take place.
One reason why the American people were tricked into supporting this war is because the true nature of the threat was kept from them. One reason why it was kept from them was because the American news media didn't do its job and didn't ask the tough questions of Bush and his administration.
Today, May 31, 2007, a Google search of news media showed only 117 entries for the terms "Tony Snow Iraq South Korea". Now, we realize that these remarks were made less than 24 hours ago. but the fact that there is relatively few media outlets picking up on them is disconcerting. We simply cannot allow this administration to take the United States into such an open-ended commitment without pubic debate.
For an interesting take on the background for Snow's remarks and what it could mean for the future, click on the link in this entry's title.
All this, of course, without any debate so far in America as to whether the American people want this kind of commitment. The Bush Administration has never told the American people until yesterday, over four years after the overthrow of Hussein, that it sees our role in Iraq as being similar to our role in South Korea. If Bush had told the American people in 2003 that the overthrow of Hussein would cost this country over 3000 American military lives, over 500 billion dollars, and then would be followed by a potential 50 year commitment to Iraq, the American people would have demanded that the war not take place.
One reason why the American people were tricked into supporting this war is because the true nature of the threat was kept from them. One reason why it was kept from them was because the American news media didn't do its job and didn't ask the tough questions of Bush and his administration.
Today, May 31, 2007, a Google search of news media showed only 117 entries for the terms "Tony Snow Iraq South Korea". Now, we realize that these remarks were made less than 24 hours ago. but the fact that there is relatively few media outlets picking up on them is disconcerting. We simply cannot allow this administration to take the United States into such an open-ended commitment without pubic debate.
For an interesting take on the background for Snow's remarks and what it could mean for the future, click on the link in this entry's title.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Halliburton Moves Headquarters to Dubai
Halliburton is moving its headquarters from Houston to Dubai. This is just another example of how multi-national corporations don't see themselves as American companies, even though they are incorporated in the United States. They see themselves as international companies whose operations are not in America but world-wide, even though most of their employees are Americans and even though they want help and contracts from the American government.
Well, here is a thought: if they don't seem themselves as American companies, why should we? More importantly why should the American government keep helping them out with contracts, sweetheart tax provisions, and other perks? Isn't it past time to start thinking of them the way they think of themselves? Isn't it past time to give them the same consideration they give American workers and taxpayers, which is to say, none?
These people aren't loyal to any one country, they are loyal to themselves and since so much of their compensation is paid in share options, to their shareholders. They don't care about this country except to make money off of it. They are perfectly to fund Republican candidates like Bubble-Boy and Dick "The Duck Hunter" Cheney who will protect their interests while shipping jobs and capital overseas. They are perfectly willing to have American troops in Iraq so they can access its oil fields but don't want their own kids serving in BB's ill-advised war. In short, they are perfect examples of the "me-first", piggish attitude that characterizes this administration and its supporters.
Well, here is a thought: if they don't seem themselves as American companies, why should we? More importantly why should the American government keep helping them out with contracts, sweetheart tax provisions, and other perks? Isn't it past time to start thinking of them the way they think of themselves? Isn't it past time to give them the same consideration they give American workers and taxpayers, which is to say, none?
These people aren't loyal to any one country, they are loyal to themselves and since so much of their compensation is paid in share options, to their shareholders. They don't care about this country except to make money off of it. They are perfectly to fund Republican candidates like Bubble-Boy and Dick "The Duck Hunter" Cheney who will protect their interests while shipping jobs and capital overseas. They are perfectly willing to have American troops in Iraq so they can access its oil fields but don't want their own kids serving in BB's ill-advised war. In short, they are perfect examples of the "me-first", piggish attitude that characterizes this administration and its supporters.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Why Using "Win" or "Lose" with Iraq Helps Bubble-Boy
Josh Marshall of www.talkingpointsmemo.com has an excellent post this morning about why using the words "win" or lose" with reference to Iraq plays into Bush's hands. His point is that using such terms obscures the fact that American policy about what would happen in a post-war Iraq was bound to fail because our objectives aren't the same as the Iraqi objectives. He argues that Bush wanted to create an Iraq that would be unified, allied with America, secular, and democratic. The Iraqis seem to want a state that is not necessarily allied with America, not necessarily secular, and one where the Sunni minority is under the control of the Shia majority. His point is that using a "won/lost" dichotomy is artificial and doesn't really describe the problems facing America in Iraq. Click on the link in this entry's title to read Marshall's analysis.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Question for Republicans: How Many American Deaths in Iraq are Enough?
Right now the cost of this war is over 3,000 American dead and over 419 billion spent on the Iraq War. Given the fact that the American dead in the first Gulf War was a fraction of that number, and the cost was borne by several nations, Americans were not prepared for what this war is costing us in lives and treasure.
Here is a question for Bush and his Republican supporters: how many American deaths in Iraq are enough? How much money do we have to spend in Iraq? Does the death toll have to reach 5,000; 10,000; or 15,000 before this administration decides the sacrifice isn't worth it? Do we have to spend half a trillion; a trillion; or a trillion and a half before this administration decides that trying to convince Iraqis not to kill each other isn't worth the cost?
No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson this question: how many American deaths in Iraq are you willing to accept? No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson what the administration calculated the American death toll to be when the administration was planning this war. Isn't it time we had a rational discussion about what this war is costing America versus the alleged benefit that we are receiving from this war being fought?
Here is a question for Bush and his Republican supporters: how many American deaths in Iraq are enough? How much money do we have to spend in Iraq? Does the death toll have to reach 5,000; 10,000; or 15,000 before this administration decides the sacrifice isn't worth it? Do we have to spend half a trillion; a trillion; or a trillion and a half before this administration decides that trying to convince Iraqis not to kill each other isn't worth the cost?
No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson this question: how many American deaths in Iraq are you willing to accept? No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson what the administration calculated the American death toll to be when the administration was planning this war. Isn't it time we had a rational discussion about what this war is costing America versus the alleged benefit that we are receiving from this war being fought?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Man Who Helped Elect Bush Now Says "Kerry Was Right" on Iraq
This is a fascinating story in the New York Times. Matthew Dowd is a Texas Democrat who spent six years working to elect George W. Bush President. He then spent four years helping him get ready for re-election and helped his 2004 campaign. He apparently now realizes that Bush has been wrong for America. He says that John Kerry was right on Iraq when he advocated a deadline for getting out last year.
Interestingly enough Dowd has a son who is now serving in Iraq. He is one of the few people that we know about in Bush's inner circle who has a personal stake in what happens in Iraq. That gives him a rather unique perspective for a Bushie, or in his case, a former Bushie.
He also faults Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina and for not firing Rumsfeld. He portrays as disillusioned and believes that he has an obligation to help make things right, to "restore the balance." He doesn't plan to be involved in the 2008 race, but said that he likes Barack Obama because he is trying to bring Americans together. Be sure to read this article.
Interestingly enough Dowd has a son who is now serving in Iraq. He is one of the few people that we know about in Bush's inner circle who has a personal stake in what happens in Iraq. That gives him a rather unique perspective for a Bushie, or in his case, a former Bushie.
He also faults Bush for his response to Hurricane Katrina and for not firing Rumsfeld. He portrays as disillusioned and believes that he has an obligation to help make things right, to "restore the balance." He doesn't plan to be involved in the 2008 race, but said that he likes Barack Obama because he is trying to bring Americans together. Be sure to read this article.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Bush's & America's Lost Opportunity in Foreign Policy
Reuters has a story out today, (3.18.2007), about how the Iraq War has undercut the Bush administration and its chances of getting any sort of domestic agenda passed. It has also ended the talk of how the "Boy Genius", aka Karl Rove, aka "Turd Blossom", was going to reshape American politics by forging one party domination of the United States. One commentator points out that America's standing overseas has never been so low and he wonders if even a new administration can turn our image abroad around. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole story).
Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.
If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.
It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.
Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.
Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.
If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.
It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.
Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Is the Mainstream Media Helping Bush Start War with Iran?
If you click on this entry's title you will link to a great article in the trade magazine Editor & Publisher which points out how both the Washington Post and the New York Times are aiding the Bush administration in its efforts to start a war with Iran. Once again these two "liberal" media giants are pushing an idea promulgated by the Bush administration without any critical analysis. In 2003 it was the idea that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. In 2007 it is the idea that Iran is arming the Shia militia in Iraq and that such militia are using these arms to kill American soldiers.
Now, the point of the article isn't whether Iran is or is not arming such groups, it is that the mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the Iraqi War experience. In the case of the New York Times the author of its article was the co-author with Judith Miller of a series of articles on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that has been totally discredited. Why in the world would a newspaper that trumpets its "excellence in journalism" assign a reporter to cover this story on Iran whose work on Iraq was so shoddy? Why in the world does the Washington Post allow officials to make claims that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government are involved in giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents without them going on the record?
Are they trying to out-Fox Fox News? Don't we deserve better from our media? If they can't or won't hold critically analyze this administration's claims, then what are they adding to the public debate that we couldn't get from a Bush administration public relations handout?
Now, the point of the article isn't whether Iran is or is not arming such groups, it is that the mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the Iraqi War experience. In the case of the New York Times the author of its article was the co-author with Judith Miller of a series of articles on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that has been totally discredited. Why in the world would a newspaper that trumpets its "excellence in journalism" assign a reporter to cover this story on Iran whose work on Iraq was so shoddy? Why in the world does the Washington Post allow officials to make claims that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government are involved in giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents without them going on the record?
Are they trying to out-Fox Fox News? Don't we deserve better from our media? If they can't or won't hold critically analyze this administration's claims, then what are they adding to the public debate that we couldn't get from a Bush administration public relations handout?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Vanity Fair Article on Neo-Con Planning for War with Iran
From the people who brought you the Iraq War: War with Iran! According to an article in Vanity Fair, the neo-cons, the people who advocate wars that the children of others will have to fight, have been pushing for war with Iran since the 1990s and especially since 2001. The question is: is the Bush Administration going to start such a war? The article argues that the views on that are mixed. Check this out, it is a fascinating article. You can link to it by clicking on this entry's title.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Is Bush Protecting the Saudis?
On September 11, 2001, 21 terrorists killed over 3,000 Americans. Nineteen of those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osma bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. According to the article linked in this entry's title from December of 2006, Saudi Arabians are supplying money to Sunni fighters in Iraq, including money for anti-aircraft missiles that are portable. In the last month there has been a dramatic rise in the number of U.S. military and civilian helicopters that have been downed by insurgents. The Bush response? Blame the Iranians. Why? Because the Bush family and their fix-it man, James Baker, have long standing business ties withe the Saudis.
It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.
It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)