Three Thousand Plus One By John Cory A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. -German Proverb President Bush will unleash the latest formula of folly in Iraq: the "surge" doctrine, embroidered with a theme of "sacrifice." Voices of the dead scream in silent sorrow, and the world watches aghast at the fiery failure. And yet, the man-child king demands one more chance. The coming speech matters little and cannot hide the bloody lies and deception that have taken a toll on America. The words will be nothing more than the rush of wind and the tinkling of brass, because in the end this is the ghoulish price of the Iraq War: Three thousand dead - plus one gaping hole in the heart of New York City and America. It is an abyss deep enough to bury truth and sanity in the ink-stained darkness of fear, with the echoes of hollow men who seek to capitalize from such catastrophic pain. Three thousand dead - plus one unsavory dictator and former friend of previous American administrations. Saddam Hussein - a man and a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Three thousand dead - plus one Osama bin Laden, still alive and free. Three thousand dead - plus one Constitution, shredded by greed and opportunistic autocrats willing to sell off our privacy, conduct illegal wiretaps, seize our mail, and track our every move on the Internet. Three thousand dead - plus one lie after another. Three thousand dead - plus one bloody corporate oil deal, fueled not by fossils, but by vibrant youthful soldiers, civilians and children. It begs the question: Are gas stations the new headstones of the fallen? Or new Veterans Centers for the wounded and maimed who return home for care? The setting for this pernicious little prince will undoubtedly include flags and perhaps troops from some military installation, because he cannot spin this bile on his own. He needs the staged background to bolster the death sentences that he will utter. Three thousand dead - plus one hopeless nation. While he speaks, if there are soldiers or families in the background, study them. Study their faces. Try to guess which one of them will be next. Pick which one of them deserves the folded flag for their family, and a hole in the ground as their future. See if you can choose who will live, who will die, and who will forever be mutilated by this senseless war. Then look to your own family or friends or neighbors. To whom would you give the honor of death in your country's name? And then, after the speech, sit in the quiet darkness and repeat to yourself: Three thousand dead - plus one more car bomb. Three thousand dead - plus one more broken-hearted family. Three thousand dead - plus one more. Three thousand dead - plus one more. Three thousand dead - plus. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011007J.shtml
Beautiful! -- For GOP Senators, Bush's Next Step in Iraq Means a Delicate Dance By Dana Milbank Wednesday, January 10, 2007; A02 Senate Republicans, dreading President Bush's prime-time address tonight calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq, emerged from their weekly party luncheon yesterday displaying more dance steps than the Joffrey Ballet. "We should listen to what the president has to say," proposed Sen. John Warner (R-Va). "I want to hear the president's plan," Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) concurred. "I want to see what he's proposing before I make dramatic statements," an unusually skittish Trent Lott (Miss.), the No. 2 Republican, told a thick knot of reporters. And you didn't want to get too close to Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio). "We need more information, okay?" he insisted. But the Republicans' principal dancer yesterday was Sen. John Sununu (N.H.), perhaps the most endangered of all GOP senators in 2008. "We haven't discussed 'the plan,' " he maintained. "That would suggest that we were told exactly what is going to be announced tomorrow, and that is certainly not the case." Reporters had barely digested that one when Sununu offered a second disavowal: "I don't really know what they're thinking about proposing, so given that, it wouldn't be wise for me to suggest that I do or don't know whether their conditions are appropriate." Is the escalating White House headed for a conflict with the antiwar Congress? "I don't know. I don't know," Sununu repeated. "Because we don't know what the president has proposed." Sununu kept punting, for a painful 15 minutes before reporters released him. "There's clearly no one else in the hall to talk to," he quipped. The Democrats, by contrast, were happy to talk. Though utterly divided on a solution for Iraq, pretty much every Democrat lined up in opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" thousands more troops into Iraq. And they were itching for a chance to put Republicans on the spot with a symbolic but toothless vote opposing the surge. "We've all made our speeches, we've said what we want to say, and pretty soon it'll be time for votes," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged. Even some Republicans, though professing no knowledge of the Bush plan, were lining up against its reported contents. "I don't believe an expansion of 20,000 troops in Iraq will solve the problems," said Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.). Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) also had "concerns." Those Republicans defending the White House labored to play down the troop increase. Suggested Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.): "We should throw 'surge' out the window." None, however, seemed quite so tortured about the issue as Sununu, whose state suffered a Democratic landslide in the November elections. Torn between loyalty to Bush and fear of the electorate, he treated reporters to a mix of sarcasm and pedantry that brought to mind the poem Calvin Trillin wrote about the senator's father, the first President Bush's chief of staff: If you knew what Sununu Knows about quantum physics and Greek And oil explorations and most favored nations And the secret handshake of Deke, Maybe you too, like Sununu, Would adopt as your principal rule That you are the brightest, you're lit the lightest, And everyone else is a fool The younger Sununu made the mistake of being the first senator out of the GOP lunch, causing reporters to surge forward with surge questions. The senator cautioned that "I don't know what the administration might propose" but suggested that "there are other aspects of this" than force escalation. How worried was he about a split between Congress and the White House? "Are my choices there 'high,' 'medium' or 'low'?" Sununu inquired. Another reporter asked Sununu how many times he had consulted with the White House on the Iraq plan. The senator pretended to count in his head and then answered, "Once." Sununu fled that group of questioners, only to fall prey to a second mob, this one encircling him with more queries about the "surge" and how long it would last. "Well," Sununu said, "I don't think you were really quite listening to my answer, because the precise number of troops, or a date months in the future is far less important to our success than how the troops are going to be used." Pressed again for a time frame, he retorted: "I think that is as clear an answer as anyone here can give you without making things up." Will Congress cut off funding for a troop surge? "I think you ought to ask people on the Appropriations Committee," he said, "preferably after the president actually makes a proposal." A reporter observed that Sununu was laying out a fairly fuzzy position. "No, it's not," he replied. "I think it's very clear. There's got to be a very strong set of proposals to deal with those things that are necessary for long-term success: reconciliation, revenue distribution and provincial elections." Left unanswered, quite deliberately, was where Sununu stood on Bush's surge. "Senator," a reporter asked, "do you like what you've heard from the White House?" "I think that's it, thanks," Sununu answered. He turned and walked away. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901481_pf.html
Early excerpts from the speech via TPM... note the bolded phrase... ________________ 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. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…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. The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…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. [To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electio...tory_wont_be_declared_on_deck_of_battleship_0
The emperor's new way way forward The White House has just distributed excerpts from George W. Bush's speech tonight as well as a "fact sheet" detailing, in an abbreviated way, his new plan for Iraq. The president will say tonight that his new plan will "change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror." But neither the "six fundamental elements" of the plan the White House has listed nor the way the president will describe them tonight sound all that different than what we've heard many, many times before. The president will say tonight that "only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people." On June 14, 2006, he declared that "success in Iraq depends upon the Iraqis." He'll say tonight that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki "understands" that his government has to follow through on its promises or that it will lose the support of the American people. Back in June, he said he'd just "made it clear to the government there that it's up to them to succeed. It's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it. We'll help, but it's -- they were elected by the people, they're living under a constitution that the people endorsed, and they have to follow through." The president will say tonight that the Iraqi government has "put forward an aggressive plan" to secure its country, in large part by securing Baghdad first. But this is at least the third swing at a Baghdad security plan. In June 2006, Bush praised Maliki for coming up with a "robust plan" to secure Baghdad. When that plan failed, the Iraqis and the Americans came up with a new one, and Bush praised it in August as being "very robust." When that plan didn't work either, Bush said Iraqi forces had failed to perform as well as they should have. Now he'll say that the problem was that there were "not enough Iraqi and American troops" to clear and then hold neighborhoods and that there were "too many restrictions on the troops we did have." This time around, Bush says that "our military commanders" have checked to see if the new Iraqi plan "addressed these mistakes," and "they report that it does." If the excerpts distributed by the White House are any indication, that's about as new as tonight's speech gets. The rest you've heard before -- often in exactly the same words Bush will use tonight. Bush will say that the war in Iraq is part of the "decisive ideological struggle of our time," just as he's been saying since at least last August. He'll say that the struggle is about providing a "hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy," just as he's been saying since at least the summer of 2005. And he'll say that victory will not come with "a surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." The president first uttered those words in December 2004. More than two years later --- with victory in Iraq seeming even more distant than it did then -- the best the president can offer is another round of promises about something that sounds a lot like the same old plan. "The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success," Bush will say tonight. With all due respect, the real question is whether anybody believes what he has to say about Iraq any more. -- Tim Grieve http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Bush says **** you to America -- Breaking News' LEADING EDGE' OF TROOP SURGE HAS ARRIVED IN BAGHDAD, ABC NEWS HAS LEARNED BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007 — President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way. ABC News has learned that the "surge" Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad Wednesday. http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532
Nice! UK to cut 3,000 troops from Iraq by May LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will cut troop levels in Iraq by almost 3,000 at the end of May, the Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday, citing a timetable for withdrawal the newspaper said it had seen. Within the next two weeks, Prime Minister Tony Blair would announce the reduction to Britain's 7,200-strong force based in the south of the war-ravaged country, it said The news came as U.S. President George W. Bush prepared to outline plans to send another 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=55012007
Bush's speech last night was excellent, imo. He carefully weighed his choices, sought bi-partisan input, and spoke with a wide assortment of experts prior to making his plan. I support the new initiative. Why not give the new strategy a chance? Why condemn it before it has even started? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that defeatism and despair is the liberals' and terrorists' collective MO here. Beat the American public down enough through the media and negativity and maybe America will pull out of Iraq, hand the country over to the terrorists, totally ruin our foreign policy for the next 30 years, and LibQaeda can have one big collective circle jerk. Do we want to win in Iraq or lose? Bush is making changes and taking steps to WIN. I think America should support the new effort to at least do what they can to help the morale of our troops. Providing a unified front helps to achieve that. Why not show positive support for a new strategy? Bush is answering America's desire for progress in Iraq. Why not support the effort? Why condemn it to failure prematurely? At this point, I don't think anything short of unconditional surrender by the US forces satisfies the liberals.
trader, this is honesty not even trying to insult you. you've been posting this same post for two years. why do you think you have to keep posting it? is it because you really think we can win from this point. here's a question, what is winning at this point.
He sought bi-partisan input and a wide assortment of experts? Who said to send more troops? He may have gotten the input but he didn't heed any of their advice. What has GWB done to warrant another chance? This WOT has been a cluster**** from day we entered Iraq. How do you win in Iraq? Once again, what has GWB done to warrant our support? Not supporting GWB doesn't mean we do not support the troops. To the contrary, we are supporting our troops by wanting them to come home.
It isn't really a new strategy. It is the same strategy with 20,000 more troops. How is that going to make a difference? NY is way more peaceful than Baghdad. It has 45,000 cops in it. These 20,000 troops will be on rotation so they won't all be there at the same time. Is that really going to change things? The military leaders say no. TJ, doesn't support the military.
