Its nice to get a refreshing view on whats going on with iraq. It gets tiresome to hear the same crap from both sides, not to mention the "i told you so crowd". I never believed we should have gone into Iraq, but I never thought for a minute that we were sent over there for pure chaos, to kill tens of thousands on both sides for the hell of it. I wholeheartedly agree that our administration is trying to do good, but obviously it isn't work. I think the most sickening thing is hearing from these "i told you so" people who feed off of ours administrations short comings. It doesn't matter who went in, republican or democrat, it would have turned out to be a disaster. We are in. Get over it! You can't change the past. Every time someone parades around a mistake or a disaster, you're welcoming another death of an American or Iraqi. Its one thing to voice your opinion, but its another thing to throw a stone or find fault at every opportunity possible. Pathetic.
Love it!!! Edwards Coins New Phrase For Escalation: "The McCain Doctrine" John Edwards has coined a new phrase that is likely to resonate throughout the Presidential campaign: "The McCain Doctrine." The phrase seeks to wrap the prospect of an escalation of the Iraq war as tightly as possible around the neck of John McCain, the most vocal proponent of a "surge" in troops. According to the Arizona Republic, Edwards hatched the "McCain doctrine" formulation in an exchange with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...new_phrase_for_escalation_the_mccain_doctrine
Space Ghost, The reason that those of us you call the "I told you so crowd" can't get over it is because it is still happening. Worse, the conflict is now set to escalate due to the fact that people like McCain, Lieberman and Bush refuse to acknowledge things aren't working there and refuse to listen to the considered opinion of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that this war will not be solved with military force. Your signature remembers the 3,000 dead in the 9/11 attacks. I remember them too and wish we would focus on the criminals that perpetrated the attacks. Instead, 3,000 more Americans have died in Iraq due to a mistake. When you are in a hole -- particularly one this deadly destructive -- you stop digging. When the president acknowledges the reality of the situation and stops sacrificing American and Iraqi lives for an ill-conceived, failed policy, I will be happy to "get over it." I will not get over it before then. And I find your characterization of my opposition to this failed war as celebrating the deaths of Americans and Iraqis to be deeply offensive. And, while I don't expect one, I'd like an apology.
Seems we now have another three word slogan for the war to go along with "Shock and Awe," Stay the Course," "Cut and Run!" "Surge and Accelerate!" Although it doesn't really sound so pithy and hip. Details to follow...
Like shooting fish in a barrel... FLASHBACK: Bush Repeatedly Gushed With Praise For General Casey In today's big New York Times piece on the unraveling of President Bush's Iraq strategy, unnamed White House officials are quoted claiming that Bush lost confidence in General George Casey over the past year or so. So we thought it would be interesting to go back and see what sort of things Bush and company were saying about Casey during that same period. And wouldn't you know it, but we found repeated examples of Bush and Dick Cheney praising Casey to the skies! Of course, it's not terribly surprising to find these guys lying again, but this contradiction's so egregious -- so easily exposed -- that you almost have to marvel at the audacity of it. Either they were lying then, or they're lying now -- and our vote is for "now." Check out all the details after the jump. So here's the part of the Times piece where unnamed Bush aides claim that the President was losing confidence in Casey over the past year or so: Got all that? Okay, let's hop into the time machine. What has the White House said about Casey "over the past year" about Casey and his alleged lack of commitment to "victory"? On October 20, 2006, Cheney gave an interview to NPR's Juan Williams, in which he said: On September 15, 2006, Bush publicly said the following: On June 26, 2006 -- after some of the horrific violence that according to the Times persuaded Bush that Casey was "more committed to withdrawal than victory" -- Bush stated explicitly that Casey was committed to achieving "victory" and that Bush trusted him: Another day, another bunch of lies. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electio...eatedly_gushed_with_praise_over_general_casey
Administration Official: Troop Escalation ‘More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One’ CNN reports “President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week.” According to the BBC, “The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq.” Last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/
IVINS: It's up to us to stop this war AUSTIN, Texas (CREATORS) -- The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck -- so it's up to us. You and me, Bubba. I don't know why Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it's time we found out. The fact is WE have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped NOW. This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it's doubly wrong for him to send 20,0000 more soldiers into this hellhole, as he reportedly will announce next week. What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn't supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us? It's a monstrous idea to put people in prison and keep them there. Since 1215, civil authorities have been obligated to tell people with what they are charged if they're arrested. This administration has done away with rights first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago, and we've let them do it. This will be a regular feature of mine, like an old-fashioned newspaper campaign. Every column, I'll write about this war until we find some way to end it. STOP IT NOW. BAM! Every day, we will review some factor we should have gotten right. So let's take a step back and note, for example, that before the war one of the architects of the entire policy, Paul Wolfowitz, testified to Congress that Iraq had no history of ethnic strife. Sectarian and ethnic strife is a part of the region. And the region is full of examples of Western colonial powers trying to occupy countries, take their resources and take over the administration of their people -- and failing. The sectarian bloodbath we see daily completely refutes Wolfowitz. And now Bush has given him the World Bank to run. Wonder what he'll do there. And let's keep in mind that when the Army arrived in Baghdad, we, the television viewers, watched footage of a bunch of enraged and joyous Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein, their repulsive dictator, in Firdos Square. Only one thing was wrong. The event was staged. Taking down the statue was instigated by a Marine colonel, and a PSYOP (psychological operations) unit made it appear to be a spontaneous show of Iraqi joy. When we later saw the whole square where the statue was located, only 30 to 40 people were there (U.S. soldiers, press and some Iraqis -- and one of several U.S. tanks present pulled the statue down with a cable). We, the television viewers, saw the square being presented as though the people of Iraq had gone into a frenzy, mobbed the square and spontaneously pulled down the statue. Fake images and claims have been a part of this fiasco from the beginning. We need to cut through all this smoke and mirrors and come up with an exit strategy, forthwith. The Democrats have yet to offer a cohesive plan to get us out of this mess. Of course, it's not their fault -- but the fact is we need leaders who are grown-ups and who are willing to try to fix it. Bush has ignored the actual grown-ups from the Iraq Study Group and the generals and all other experts who are nearly unanimous in the opinion that more troops will not help. So, like I said, it's up to you and me, Bubba. We need to make sure that the new Congress curbs executive power, which has been so misused, and asserts its own power to make this situation change. Now. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/05/ivins.bush/index.html
The president will go against the will of the American people, he fired the generals that said a surge wasn't going to work, even members of his own party are questioning his reasoning for sending more of our brave men and women into the middle of a lost war. Noone is for this idea or escalation! What will it take for the president to get the message that he alone is the only one that thinks an escalation will work? What will it take to get him to stop the madness?
It will be an uphill battle for him, but if he does an amazing job his last 2 years his place might be 2nd to last instead of last.
from josh -- The way this is 'supposed' to work is that when the president takes a dramatic new direction like this he consults with Congress. That way, some relative range of agreement can be worked out through consultation. National unity is great. Or at least that's the theory. But here we have a case where the president's party has just been thrown out of power in Congress largely, though not exclusively, because the public is fed up with the president's lies and failures abroad. (Indeed, at this point, what else does the Republican party stand for but corruption at home and failure abroad? Small government? Please.) The public now believes the war was a mistake. Decisive numbers believe we should start the process of leaving Iraq. And the public is overwhelmingly against sending more troops to the country. The country's foreign policy establishment (much derided, yes, but look at the results) is also overwhelmingly against escalation. And yet, with all this, the president has ignored the Congress, not consulted the 110th Congress in any real way, has ignored the now longstanding views of the majority of the country's citizens and wants to plow ahead with an expansion of his own failed and overwhelmingly repudiated policy. The need for Congress to assert itself in such a case transcends the particulars of Iraq policy. It's important to confirm the democratic character of the state itself. The president is not a king. He is not a Stuart. And one more Hail Mary pass for George W. Bush's legacy just isn't a good enough reason for losing more American lives, treasure and prestige. -- Josh Marshall
Ted Kennedy preempts the McCain Doctrine. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/twH8yak6QbY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/twH8yak6QbY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
I don't know how to post images, but this is worth a click. http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=21664
right click on the image go to properties copy the address paste it into your comment highlight the address click on the mountain icon above
