Saturday, February 03, 2007
"If they bomb Iran, we'll remove them from office"
I want to hear those words Actually, I need to hear those words.This should be coming out of every Senator’s mouths. That includes you, Specter, Brownback, Warner and Hagel. And it includes you too, Kennedy, Biden, Boxer, Obama and yes, Clinton. This should be the only discussion when it comes to Iran.
They fucked up Afghanistan in less than a year. They fucked up Iraq before they even went in. They fucked up the Israel/Palestine situation. They fucked up North Korea and Iran already.
Neoconservatives who are forcing the dialogue on how dangerous Iran is and why "nothing is off the table" have not only been wrong on every single prediction and count, but they have been wrong on such a tremendous level on every single thing for so long that it would be laughable if lives weren’t at stake.
This administration, as well as the revolving door of sycophants, war criminals recycled from the Ford administration, looters, polluters and just plain greedy bastards that it has consistently surrounded itself with will not stop in their quest for whatever the hell their quest is.
These people do not deserve the responsibility of wiping their own ass (sorry for the visual), let alone wiping entire cities off the face of the earth. And we are to "trust them" that they won’t go ahead and just do it? The reasons why we "have to keep all options on the table" are word for fucking word the same as the dubious, twisted, incorrect, misleading and bullshit reasons why we "had to bomb Iraq NOW".
The evidence? In the words of the LA Times, "scant". The proof of Iran meddling in Iraq? Can’t be proven. But don’t trust the LA Times. Ask National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley:
"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.
Not good enough? How about new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.
"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.
Game over. No evidence. Unsure of any connection. But let’s try to move the Overton Window while we are at it.
This is absurd. How the hell is this happening? How are these madmen (and women – need to be equal opportunity) not being told point blank that their ideas on bombing Iran are nothing more than delusional fantasies? Where is all the screaming about the fact that Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a blowhard figurehead (kind of like some of our Senators)?
Where is the absolute dismissive mocking laughter about the complete insanity of this "plan"? I want to hear, "An attack on Iran? With what Army?"
These criminals should have been removed from office long ago. With their backs up against the wall, they will be more brazen. They need to go. The world community deserves to know that these insane so called leaders who are hell bent on bringing on the end of civilization will be removed from office if they take this one step further. And the future of the United States of America demands nothing less.
*************
Update [2007-2-3 13:59:35 by clammyc]: I think this link allows you to contact the House reps and this link allows you to contact your Senators.
Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing
Friday, February 02, 2007
Impeach, Impeach, Impeach
Every single day the US puts out another statement about how Iran is helping in attacks against US troops in Iraq. This is nothing but complete lies. The same type of lies we heard before the Iraq War. The Iranians support the Shiites in Iraq. The insurgents laying down the IEDs against our troops and that are doing a great majority of the attacks against us are - Sunnis!
The Iranians would never support the Sunnis. The Shiite militias are mainly killing Sunnis now, not US troops. This is so obvious, but unfortunately these new set of lies are challenged by so few people, just like in the lead up to the Iraq War. People are more skeptical now, but not nearly skeptical enough as the war machine revs up again.
The LA Times at least has written an excellent piece explaining why these charges against Iran are lies. The Bush administration also warns of Iranian WMD, when every expert in the field says they wouldn't even have the capacity for a nuclear weapon another five to ten years. Gee, where have I heard lies about WMD before?
The lies that this administration clearly told about Iraq is more than enough to impeach the president and the vice president. They purposely lied during the State of the Union speech, they lied that they knew where the weapons of mass destruction were and they lied that they were certain that Saddam had them. Certain! Really, then where are they?!
They repeatedly insinuated and outright claimed that Iraq was complicit in the attacks against us on 9/11. That is a grotesque lie. Imagine if Roosevelt had lied about who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and brought us to war with China instead of Japan. Would that not be an impeachable offense?
If you insist on a violation of law for impeachment, not just gross violation of the public trust, then the Bush administration can accommodate you there as well. They brag about how they have been in violation of a federal law for five years now. They broke the FISA law - and they admit it. Mission accomplished. Bush and Cheney are felons according to the law. Will you impeach them already?
Why do I care so much to impeach these guys? Because, unlike conventional wisdom, I don't think we are going to be able to run out the clock on them. They are going to do something even more hideous before the next two years are up. Every week, Michael Hirsh from Newsweek comes on our show and tells us we have no choice but to hold our nose for two years and wait out this administration.
But that's not true. If our legislators were truly courageous, they would have a choice. That choice is impeachment. It is completely warranted and completely necessary.
Look, for me this is not a political thing. I don't give a damn which party is in power, as long as they do reasonable things. I thought George H. W. Bush was an excellent foreign policy president. I voted against Bill Clinton twice, but came to regret it because I thought he also did an excellent job in foreign policy.
I thought the Clinton impeachment proceedings were hideous and ridiculous. It is part of what drove me away from the Republican Party. But this is not the same. This is clearly not some sort of silly political vendetta; this is a matter of grave national importance. If you can't see the difference there, you are being willfully ignorant to the facts.
Most likely, my warnings here and the warnings of many others will be disregarded. We will be branded as the extremists, as the real extremists prepare for another horrible war. As the real extremists continue to trample upon our constitution (it makes my blood boil every time I think about the Military Commissions Act and how twelve unprincipled, pathetically weak Democratic Senators and every so-called moderate Republican, like Chuck Hagel, voted for that atrocity). As the real extremists continue to break the law and spy on American citizens without court orders. As the real extremists ignore Congress altogether with their so-called signing statements and authorize torture.
And all of this we might be able to bear, as we have gotten used to the lawlessness and the grotesqueries of this administration. But if they start another war with Iran, they will take all of this to another level. And then we, the alarmists, will be proven right - once again. And for our correct assessment, we will, once again, be ignored and marginalized.
Then in 2008 when the Republicans are run out of town en masse and the party is nearly finished historically, people will say, "Why didn't someone warn us?" Well, I'm warning you now. Impeachment isn't for the sake of the Democrats. They stand to gain nearly universal power if this administration actually starts a disastrous war with Iran. Nobody will vote for a Republican on the national level for another twenty years.
It's the Republicans who have to realize that this administration threatens their very existence. A war with Iran? Gas prices at ten dollars a gallon, bombings all over the world, our troops trapped in the Middle East, trillions wasted. How on God's green earth do you think you're going to recover from that?
There are only two possible answers. No, the war with Iran will go great. If you think that, you are so irrational that talking to you is a waste of time anyway. Or no, Bush and Cheney aren't that crazy. Do you really want to take your chances on that? Every single thing they have done so far indicates they are that crazy! And that's what you're betting your whole party on? That Dick Cheney and George Bush will be restrained? Good luck.
Please, either for your own political advantage or for the antiquated idea of actually helping the country, remove these guys from power before they do more damage. Otherwise, we will all live to regret it.
Labels: George W Bush, ignored, impeach, Iran, Iraq, marginalized, told you so, warning
NIE Undermines Administration Claim That Iran Is ‘Igniting’ Violence In Iraq
The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that Iran is responsible for the surging violence in Iraq. But on multiple occasions, the Bush administration has “ordered a delay in publication of evidence” to support its claim. U.S. allies who have seen the evidence said that it “still falls short of an airtight case.”
In an inteview with CNN yesterday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said that Iran is “stoking” and “igniting” sectarian violence in Iraq. But he was unable to actually offer any such evidence.
Today’s new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) explains why Iran is not a driving force behind Iraq’s violence:
Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq.
The NIE acknowledges that Iran is trying to cause trouble. But it also notes that sectarian violence — not Iranian support — is the most immediate threat. Moreover, as the New York Times wrote yesterday, “more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down. If Mr. Bush isn’t careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country along.”
Transcript:
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Joining us now, the undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns.
Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for coming in.
UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE NICHOLAS BURNS: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: What evidence do you have, for example, that the Iranians are involved in killing American troops in Iraq?
BURNS: Well, Wolf, I think there’s incontrovertible evidence that the Iranians have been giving very sophisticated explosive technology to Shia insurgent groups for the better part of the last year and half. Those groups have used that technology, some of which is armor-piercing — to attack American soldiers and British soldiers and to kill them. It’s a very, very serious development.
Now, we have warned the Iranian government in past about this. We had not received an adequate response from them. And you have seen now President Bush, over the several weeks, having decided that we will detain those military and intelligence officials in Iraq who are responsible for this.
Obviously, we wish Iran to cease and desist. Iran is not playing the type of role that most other countries are in Iraq.
Most countries like the United States want to see Iraq stayed together as unitary state. They want to see the problems between the Shia and the Sunni be resolved. But Iran seems to be stoking those problems, igniting them.
And so that’s the basic — that’s the basic allegation that we’re making against the Iranians. And we hope they’re going to have a change of mind.
BLITZER: And the State Department, I take it, is putting together a dossier, a full report that will be declassified and made public going through your arguments, your evidence? Is that right?
BURNS: Well, obviously, we have been making the case for the last several weeks and will continue to make the case to the American people and to the international public that this is a problem. There really is no doubt about it.
Labels: Bush Administration, NIE, The facts are being fixed around the policy
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Religious right misleads its followers in massive email blitz about weekend peace march
What a surprise. Two of the largest and angriest groups of the religious right, the American Family Association (known for its failed boycotts of American companies that support civil rights) and the Family Research Council (known for its obsessive homophobia), were caught misleading their followers this week in an effort to denigrate the United States Capitol Police, the folks risking their lives to protect our members of Congress.
In separate emails, the AFA and FRC defamed the United States Capitol police by claiming that they knowingly permitted a small handful of individuals to deface the US Capitol during this weekend's anti-Iraq-war protest. AFA and FRC even urged their followers to contact Speaker Pelosi's office to complain about the apparently deficient police officers defending our nation's capitol. (One group even suggested that perhaps Pelosi herself had ordered the police to allow the graffiti!)
Only problem? The AFA and the FRC got the story totally, 100%, wrong. The two far-right groups siced their alleged millions of members (that's what AFA claims, though we don't buy it) on the Capitol Police, berating them for not doing their job. That's why the Capitol Police were now forced to respond and set the record straight.
First off, before we hear from the Capitol Police, let's see what AFA and FRC alleged (untruths in bold).
From an AFA email sent today:
War protesters allowed to spray paint the U.S. CapitolAnd here is what the Family Research Council told its followers:
Capitol Chief of Police tell officers not to arrest anyone
Dear xxxxx,
During last Saturday's Washington rally protesting the war in Iraq, hundreds of anti-war protesters were allowed to desecrate government property by spray painting the Capitol with anarchist symbols. I did not see or hear any report of this in any of the mainline media outlets!
Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse ordered his officers to fall back and allow the protesters to exercise what he called "their First Amendment rights" to spray paint the Capitol steps with graffiti. Defending his actions, Morse said, "The graffiti was easily removed by the staff. It is our duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, while allowing the public to exercise their freedom of speech." He even ordered his officers not to arrest anyone!
The war protesters were given access and leniency to deface government property. According to Family Research Council, public employees had to come in on their day off, at taxpayers' expense, to clean up the mess the protesters left behind.
...the anti-Bush protestors were given unprecedented access to the U.S. Capitol grounds, and some of them used that access to publicly deface taxpayer's property. According to the local newspaper, The Hill, the protesters were allowed to take the Capitol steps and they began to spray-paint "anarchist symbols" and phrases such as "Our capitol building" and "You can't stop us" around the area.Too bad that most of what they wrote their followers isn't true per the Capitol Police themselves. Let's walk our way through the charges, and then see what the Capitol Police chief had to say:
For any other group, such acts would mean immediate arrest. This time, the Capitol police's hands were tied because they were ordered to stand down by their Chief of Police, who answers to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)....
According to the news reports the rank and file police officers were "livid" that they were ordered not to arrest anyone. Since the Capitol police answer to Speaker Pelosi, the question arises, did the Chief of Police give the "no arrest" order or did it come from someone else? Whoever is responsible for the order needs to explain why the physical destruction of taxpayer property is acceptable.
1. ALLEGATION: The Capitol Police "allowed" the protesters to spray paint the US Capitol - the police saw the protesters defacing the property and did nothing about it because the chief of police ordered his fellow officers to let the evil protesters do whatever they wanted.
TRUTH: The Police had no idea that a small group was defacing anything, and had they seen the defacement, there would have been immediate arrests. And I quote the chief of police:
Some members of this group did covertly mark the pavement on the Lower West Terrace during their confrontation with us. Had this been observed, I would have directed arrests to be made. However, the size and continual movement of the crowd provided concealment and made detection of their actions impossible. Once the crowd dispersed, I was appalled and disgusted that any individual, whatever their cause, would deface the grounds of the Capitol. Fortunately, due to the notable efforts of the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, their signs of disrespect were quickly washed away.2. ALLEGATION: The protesters were permitted to take to the Capitol steps where they painted the steps with graffiti.
TRUTH: From the chief, "We held our lines; no one entered into secure areas; and no one climbed the steps of the Capitol or even got close to any of the doors or windows."
3. ALLEGATION: The anti-Bush protesters were given "unprecedented access to the Capitol grounds."
TRUTH: From the chief, "At the end of the day, the splinter group was only allowed to be in areas that are otherwise open to the public at anytime of the day or night."
And now, the right wing blogs are getting involved, spurred on by the religious right groups, and they're asking their readers to harass the Capitol Police. Imagine that, trying to close down the phone lines of a police department - and not just any police department, but the police department in charge of protecting our members of Congress from the terrorists.
The untruths spread by the likes of the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are now quite literallly endangering the ability of the Capitol Police to do their jobs.
So there you have it. Whether they're simply sloppy with the truth, or outright liars, the religious right has proven again why it simply can't be trusted. It always lets its anger, rather than its heart, guide its action. Not very Christian.
Labels: American Family Association, Family Research Council, liars
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Chicago Tribune blames bloggers for Obama smears
Labels: Chicago Tribune, MSM, retards
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
“I would suggest moving back,”
Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor during his visit to a Caterpillar factory today. “I’m about to crank this sucker up.” Newsweek notes, “As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety. ‘Get out of the way!’ a news photographer yelled. ‘I think he might run us over!’ said another. … Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor’s window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned.”
Labels: bully, George W Bush, retard
Let's Call Them "Republican Americans"
So the Republicans have decided that we should now be called The Democrat Party. It sort of sounds like "rat," so that's fun for them.
I've heard plenty of good retorts, from The Republic Party, to Republican'ts, But I say we should call them Republican Americans. And their party should be called The Republican-American Community.
It has that same awkward political correctness of "African Americans." And like that phrase, there’s absolutely nothing technically wrong with it. But used just the right way, it drips with the subtle condescension that says, "Hey, you’re Americans too, just like us, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise." Not convinced yet? Let's see how it works in context:
Start with these examples:
"Last night we had dinner with a lovely Republican-American couple who moved in next door. They’re from Charleston, I think. Really nice couple. But their daughter looks half-Democratic, so we’ll have to get to the bottom of that one."
"I asked them what’s their favorite Republican-American restaurant, and without hesitating, they both said, ‘Chick-fil-A.’"
"Newt Gingrich, a prominent Republican American and former congressman, was surprisingly critical of his own community after the 2006 mid-term elections."
"Senator Kerry did his best to court the Republican-American vote, even staging a photo-op at a Chick-fil-A restaurant. But most Republican Americans remained skeptical, saying it smacked of pandering."
"Most Republican Americans, when pressured, will candidly admit that white-collar crime is not an American problem, but a Republican-American problem."
"Police have few leads in the stock fraud case, but say the perpetrator was a Republican-American man, age 50 to 60, balding, of average height and weight. If you see a Republican-American man matching that description, you are encouraged to call the number on your screen."
"Critics of the tax break say it unfairly benefits Republican Americans, for whom government assistance has become a way of life."
"President Obama vetoed the earmark, saying ‘The best thing we can do for the Republican-American community is to stop reinforcing the soft prejudice of lowered expectations.’"
"He signed the veto while surrounded by a handpicked cadre of Republican-American supporters at a local Chick-fil-A restaurant."
It's working for me. Add your own. It's fun.
Labels: Republican-American, snark
Breaking Another Iraq Taboo
For the first time in the four-plus years since Congress authorized the Iraq war, Congress is having a serious debate about how we can fix the President's failed Iraq policy. Unfortunately, while there have been plenty of members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voicing opposition to the President's plans for escalation, most of the plans being pushed will do nothing to end the catastrophe in Iraq.
Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the President's failed Iraq policy. That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq. The Constitution makes Congress a co-equal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the brave troops whose lives are on the line, to end the war. We can and must force the President to safely redeploy our troops so that we can get back to focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11.
Tomorrow, I will be chairing a full Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." This hearing will help remind my colleagues in the Senate and the American public that Congress is not powerless - even when it acts that way. We have the power to stop the policies of a President that continue to hurt our national security. Soon after tomorrow's hearing, I will introduce legislation to do just that.
I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.
Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.
Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them. We must not let this administration continue to intimidate like it did in the lead-up to war.
In August 2005, I became the first Senator to propose a timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. A timetable was considered taboo in Congress then, but it's clearly the position supported by the majority of this country. Now it is time to break another taboo - that Congress can't use its constitutional power to end funding for the war and bring our troops home safely. The catastrophe in Iraq is not the fault of our brave men and women in uniform, but rather the failed policies of this administration. Our troops and our national security should no longer be the ones to suffer for this Administration's terrible mistake.Labels: balls, Democratic Party, Feingold
Call Him Caesar
For reasons that elude me, Republicans have stood idly by for years while George Bush and Dick Cheney pull out every pseudo-legal stop to evade the will of the people, while slowly transforming a once vibrant political party into what may soon become a fractured, regional joke for a generation. Here's the latest (H/T RS):
NYT -- In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities. This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.
Heads up to the legislative and legal branch, that includes Democrats, but most especially Republicans: For the good of the nation and your political skin, you need to think about how you're going to shut these neoclowns down, or look for a new line of work. They've proven themselves utterly inept at everything they touch. They have a well established track record of leaving ruined lives, dead or maimed bodies, and terminal political careers, in their wake. You or your constituents could well find yourselves in any of those three categories if this shit is allowed to continue. Pissed off people make unreliable voters. Capiche?
Labels: dictator, George W Bush
The Most Insidious of Traitors
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
Every news article that talks about the Scooter Libby trial mentions that no one has been "charged with the leak itself." Conservatives have been using this as an exculpatory defense. "See, no one did anything wrong. This is just a minor perjury offense."
Of course, I don't remember Republicans thinking perjury was such a minor offense when Bill Clinton was president. But putting that aside, it has to be pointed out that everyone involved admits that they did leak the identity of a covert CIA officer.
There are only two reasons why they haven't been charged with that offense. First, Scooter Libby impeded the investigation by lying about what they did - and that is why he is now being tried. If he had not impeded the investigation, there very well might have been charges on the underlying crime.
Second, it is hard to prove in a court of law that the Rove, Libby and the others knew for sure that Plame was undercover. They knew she worked at the CIA, they knew they were leaking her identity, and they knew they were doing it for a political purpose. But they might or might not have known for sure that she was a covert agent.
So, this uncertainty might protect them for criminal prosecution. But it does not protect them from moral, political and societal judgment for what they have done. They all admit that they leaked Valerie Plame's name in what was an obvious attempt to smear her and her husband for political purposes. Even more importantly, they betrayed our trust by "exposing the name of our sources."
Some conservatives even had the audacity to say Valerie Plame might not have been undercover anymore because the notorious traitor, Aldrich Ames might have given her name to the Russians earlier. Well, that certainly is an interesting question: Who betrayed Valerie Plame first, was it Aldrich Ames or Karl Rove?
Whether Rove and Libby are criminals who have violated the letter of the law is an open question. But what is indisputable is that they have violated our trust. They have exposed the government's most important sources - Valerie Plame worked on counter-proliferation aimed at finding weapons of mass destruction - and they did it for politics.
At least, Libby and Richard Armitage, who also admited leaking Plame's name, don't work for the government anymore. How can Karl Rove, who avoided prosection for perjury by admitting at the last minute that he leaked the CIA officer's name, still be employed by the United States government? And how is Dick Cheney, the man who apparently orchestrated this whole leak in the first place still our vice president?
Is there no one that will hold these men accountable for what they have done? Have we lost all sense of proper outrage? Is there nothing we can do to remove these men who have betrayed our sources and our country?
I have not lost my sense of outrage, no matter how much obfuscation there is by the other side on what really happened here. The facts are clear and the people who are involved have admitted them on the record. We have no choice but to agree with George H. W. Bush. We should have nothing but contempt and anger for these men who have been shown to be "the most insidious of traitors."
Labels: Dick Cheney, George W Bush, Scooter Libby, traitors
Monday, January 29, 2007
Hadley Falsely Claims Iraq Study Group Supports Escalation Strategy
The Baker-Hamilton report supports this conclusion. It said: “We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.” Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.
Tony Snow unveiled the new talking point earlier this month:
What we have done — if you take a look at page 73, where it talks about building capabilities, putting Iraqis in the lead, and there was even some talk about “a surge,” that’s in there.
The Iraq Study Group did say a “short-term redeployment” of more troops into Baghdad could be part of a larger military, economic, and diplomatic plan. But both Robert Kagan, the architect of the escalation plan, and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the new U.S. ground commander in Iraq, have said the escalation could last anywhere between 18 months and 3 years. That’s hardly “short-term.”
Moreover, the Iraq Study Group report specifically argued against sending more troops to Iraq:
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”
The Iraq Study Group’s co-chair Lee Hamilton recently spoke out against the plan. “You delay the date of completion of the training mission,” Hamilton said. “You delay the date of handing responsibility to the Iraqis. You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops.”
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Have You Checked on a Wingnut Today?
I'm worried about them. Really. See, after all the idiocy that attended Keith Ellison's swearing in as the first Muslim congressman, after all the foaming at the mouth, all the arm-waiving, all the apocalyptic proclamations, I'm afraid of what might happen when word leaks that Irael has approved a Muslim as a cabinet minister.
The Israeli government overwhelmingly approved the appointment of the country's first Muslim Cabinet minister Sunday, billing it as an important step for a long-suffering minority. ... Majadele told AP Television News that his goals as a Cabinet minister would be "promoting coexistence between the two peoples inside the state, and promoting dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis toward negotiations and political agreement."
Look at that. A Muslim cabinet minister, right in the heart of Israel, and he's calling for "coexistance." Doesn't Israel know that Muslim's can't be trusted, and the Koran calls for chopping off the heads of all the infidels? Don't they know that all Muslims are terrorists? Don't they know they need to adopt the Virgil Goode position to protect themselves from the bearded menace?
Has anybody seen Glenn Beck? Has anyone made sure Congressman Goode is up and squawking? Has anyone fallen under the vast shadow of Limbaugh since the word leaked out? I'm thinking that these guys need one of those medical alert buttons right now. If you live near one of them, you might want to check and make sure the yellow globs of bile are still oozing through their hate-powered systems.
On the other hand, perhaps you shouldn't get too close to any wingnut for a week or two. Exploding heads can be a hazard -- especially when those heads are bone all the way through.
