Asking The Questions, Again

You're right, Casey...mad as hell. The cure? Action.

BTW, Froomkin is asking lots of questions too...

Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?
--snip--
When was the last time that Bush spoke in a forum open to citizens who are representative of the diverse array of views in the country?
--snip--
Why is this happening? Is it related to the widespread public dissatisfaction with his policies, particularly in Iraq? Is Bush reluctant to appear before an audience that might not clap at his applause lines? Is he afraid of dissent? Are his aides shielding him against his will? Is it just a matter of stagecraft, to avoid any incident that might lure the media off message?
--snip--
Where is McClellan?
--snip--
Plame Watch: What could Novak possibly know that is exculpatory for Rove?

There's lots more at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/29/BL2005112900634.html

I recommend the article by James Fallows - Atlantic Monthly last issue - "Why Iraq Doesn't Have An Army." The story I wrote on it a couple of weeks ago should also be in the archives here.

In an effort to address criticism that the United States has no clear plan for winning the Iraq war, the White House today released a 38-page document mapping out a plan for victory. "With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain," the report reads. "No war has ever been won on a timetable." Also today, President Bush is scheduled to make an address that will launch a series of speeches aimed at bolstering public support for the war.

"We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience," the report said. "Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete."

"That's what's important for the American people to understand -- that, one, we are not going to cut and run; two, we'll achieve our objective; and three, the president is going to listen to those who are on the ground who can make the best assessment," Bush said.

U.S. death toll rises
The U.S. death toll reached 2,110 Tuesday when a roadside bomb killed two U.S. soldiers north of Baghdad, and support for the conflict has dropped sharply in recent months.

Only 35 percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken earlier this month said they approved of Bush's handling of the conflict, and 54 percent said the invasion had been a mistake.

From El Paso, Texas, Bush flew to Denver for a Republican fund-raiser Tuesday.

A crowd of anti-war demonstrators met him after he landed, waving signs urging Bush's impeachment and a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Some waved their middle fingers at reporters traveling with the president.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush would outline "real progress" in the training of Iraqi security forces during his Wednesday speech at the U.S. Naval Academy.

In 2006, McClellan said, "the expectation is that conditions will be changing on the ground -- we've been making real progress with the training of Iraqi security forces -- and that conditions will permit us to be able to reduce our presence."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/index.html

Rapid Response: Deconstructing the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”

After two-and-a-half years and 2,110 U.S. fatalities, the Bush administration finally released a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” (NSVI). The problem is, it’s not a new strategy for success in Iraq, it’s a public relations document. The strategy describes what has transpired in Iraq to date as a resounding success and stubbornly refuses to establish any standards for accountability. It dismisses serious problems such as the dramatic increase in bombings as “metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use.” Americans understand it’s time for a new course in Iraq. Unfortunately, this document is little more than an extended justification for a President “determined to stay his course.”

NO STANDARDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed an amendment calling on the Bush administration to provide a “schedule” for meeting U.S. objectives in Iraq, “information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.” The NSVI completely rejects this call. “We will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached,” the document states in bold and italicized print, “because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables.” The only time frames proposed for achieving U.S. objectives are virtually meaningless phrases: “short term,” “medium term,” and “longer term.” The goals for these time frames are equally ambiguous; the so-called “short term” goals, for instance, are listed as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.”

THE NATIONAL PAT ON THE BACK: The NSIV is less of a strategy and more of a pat on the back. Much of the 35 pages is devoted to describing how well things are going. Oddly, the strategy declares on Page 5 that “Our Strategy Is Working.” On the economic front we are told, “Our restore, reform, build, strategy is achieving results.” On the political front: “Our Isolate, Engage, and Build strategy is working.” On the security front: “Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working.” With everything going so well, the NSVI reminds us that “change is coming to the region…From Kuwait to Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, there are stirrings of political pluralism, often for the first time in generations.”

REPLACING METRICS WITH EMPTY PHRASES: In late-September, Gen. George Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, revealed that “[t]he number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one.” That meant only 700 Iraq Security forces were rated as “Level 1″ on the four point scale created by the U.S. military. Instead of addressing the problem, they’ve abandoned the ratings system. The NSVI notes that “now more than 120 Iraqi army and police battalions are in the fight.” (The term “in the fight,” used 6 times in the document, is not defined.) The strategy also notes: “As of November 2005, there were more than 212,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces, compared with 96,000 in September of last year.” It fails to mention that in Feburary 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed there were 210,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces and “thousand more that are currently in training.”

DISMISSING INCREASED VIOLENCE: The NSVI emphasizes that U.S. officials “track numerous indicators to map the progress of our strategy,” and offers websites where some of these reports are publicly available. “Americans can read and assess these reports to get a better sense of what is being done in Iraq and the progress being made on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis.” The problem is that these reports have on numerous occasions been found to be inaccurate, or to overstate progress using incomplete or misleading data. Additionally, the document states (in bold print) that these Pentagon statistics “have more strategic significance than the metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use as a measure of progress or failure: number of bombings.” Surely one needs a wide assortment of statistics to get the full picture from Iraq. But considering the No. 1 “Strategic Pillar” listed in the NSVI is to “Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency,” it is simply not true to claim that the number of insurgent bombings (now at an all-time high) is irrelevant as a measure of progress.

IGNORING KEY CHALLENGES: When decorated veteran Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) presented his Iraq plan two weeks ago, he offered two primary reasons for supporting redeployment. One was the heavy burden the Iraq war has placed on the U.S. military and its recruitment and retention efforts, many of which are at historically low levels. The second was the shifting sentiments of the Iraqi population; Murtha cited a recent poll that found “over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.” The NSVI ignores both of these fundamental facts. Virtually nothing is said about the well-being of our military, unquestionably a vital element in any strategy for success. Moreover, it disregards the latest Iraqi public opinion data, stating falsely that violence “has been discredited within and outside Iraq.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/30/deconstructing-iraq-strategy/

"If we can pluck up barely literate army reservists, from say, Fort Ashby, West Virginia, train them up in thirty to ninety days, and ship them off to fight in Iraq, shouldn't we have, say about a gazillion Iraqis trained by now?"

I would argue that you should retrack this statement from your passionate blog contribution. The link provided does not leave the reader with the impression that England is "barely literate", but rather a woman who was abused and taken advantage of herself. By associating derogatory statements concerning low intelligence to the great people of WV you insult the very people who protect this nation. WV has the greatest concentration of servicemen and women per capita than any other state in this country and to denounce an entire state based on the situation faced by a single WV reservist is at best inappropriate.

No one has to "approve" or "accept" the abuse taken place at Abu Gharib prison to see my point. In the source provided we are also informed that the picture we saw actually pale in comparison to what was going on in the MI wing. If such is irrelevant to this blog contribution, then such should not have been given as a source in a vain attempt to reinforce a misguided opinion. I would warn once again, of the mistakes inherent to blaming servicemen/women for the decisions made by their commander-in-chief. Next time you feel the need to rant, leave the insults and blame to those who deserve such ranting.

The following is an article on the most recent attempts by the Bush Administration to win the War of Public Opinion in Iraq. If we were to run our foreign policy to the criteria established by great minds like Weinberger, the strategy or plan for victory in Iraq should have been clear long before we even invaded. This is what we should be upset about.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051130-084311-1112r

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (CNN) -- President Bush launched a re-tooled White House strategy on Iraq Wednesday by delivering the first of several speeches aimed at boosting public support for the U.S.-led war there.

"As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory," Bush said as he opened his address at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

"To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief."

Hours before the speech, the White House went on the offensive by releasing a declassified document that it said outlines strategy for victory in Iraq.

"To assure victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq," Bush said in his address. "Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy: how we look at the war, how we see the enemy, how we define victory, and what we're doing to achieve it."

"At this time last year there were only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat," Bush said. "Now there are over 120 Iraqi army and police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists, typically comprised of between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces.

"Of these, about 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side by side with coalition forces, and about 40 others are taking the lead in the fight."

Bush characterized the U.S. enemy in Iraq as "a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists." The terrorist group, he said, "is the smallest but the most lethal" of the three.

Another point worth mentioning here is that the mistreatment of prisoners is not a strictly military concern. I would suggest people read Newjack, by Ted Conover... many of these things happen in our own prisons everyday. His book relates his personal experiences as a corrections officier in Sing Sing (New York) over the course of a year.

The general public does not know or apparently want to know what goes on in prisons whether they be in Iraq, Cuba or at home. This leads to an interesting conflict, in that many measures we deem "horrible" are in fact common and necessary, but the ideals of a moral society refuse those who are not in the Department of corrections from accepting the methods. At the same time lines are often crossed and penalties often not enforced for such actions. If we as a nation were really disturbed by Abu Gharib, then why has there been a cry for investigation of all prisons by the people?

KDMCG:

Point well taken and the piece has been changed.

I apologize for the sloppy error which resulted in giving offense where none was intended.

Happy Birthday to our Matt:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=970&pid=3788&st=0&#entry3788

On Today Show, O’Reilly Compares Murtha With Hitler Sympathizers
Bill O’Reilly on the Today Show this morning:

These pin-heads running around going, “Get out of Iraq now” don’t know what they are talking about. These are the same people before Hitler invaded in WWII that were saying, “He’s not such a bad guy.” They don’t get it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/30/oreilly-murtha-hitler/

Even as we type, I am listening to Senator Kerry's remarks on behalf of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate... as he is summarizing their collective response to Mr. Bush's latest attempt this morning to snowjob the American people into accepting even some small shred of the mountains of misdirection that he and his mendacious minions have heaped on top of the rotting compost heap of their administration's failed adventures in Iraq and at home.

I am listening to Senator Kerry's remarks, and observing Senator Kerry's demeanor and his presidential presence as he is making those remarks... and I must say that I for one am proud, in fact *very* proud, of who Senator Kerry is and of what he stands for... and also of the prodigious efforts that so many of us made in the service of Senator Kerry's and former Senator Edwards' cause during the last national election cycle.

I've said this often enough before, but I'm not too shy to say it again here :

Thank you, John. And thank you, John. And thank you, fellow patriots. You all make me proud, as indeed you make us all proud.

because every vote can and does and always should matter,
Otter

Welcome Back, Otter!

This just in:

Students need help

World Can’t Wait – Drive out the Bush Regime
305 W Broadway #185, NY, NY 10013 • 866-973-4463
www.worldcantwait.org
November 30, 2005

Available for interview: Sunsara Taylor of World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime
Student organizers: Aaron Ray, John Robinson, and Brandon King

For Immediate Release
Contact:: press@worldcantwait.org

7 Hampton University Students Face Possible Expulsion for Political Protest at Hearing on Friday, December 2nd, 2005

Hampton, Virginia: 7 students at Hampton University, a historically black college in Virginia, face possible expulsion at a hearing to be held this Friday, December 2nd.

On November 2nd, when dozens of students gathered to distribute literature, read poetry, and give speeches in the Student Union, Hampton Police shut down the event and took the ID’s of the organizers. Later one student was followed by an undercover detective and 7 were issued summons of possible expulsion.

The Hampton Administration has cited their handbook rules which ban the distribution of literature not approved by campus authorities. However, student organizers have pointed out that unapproved flyers for parties, often with scantily clad women on them, are regularly distributed without penalty.

Howard Zinn, Michael Eric Dyson, Katha Pollitt, Sunsara Taylor and other academics and activists are rallying to their defense. They issued a statement which reads, in part, “We…demand that the Hampton University administration to drop all charges against…and to apologize to these students. These students must not be expelled! We also call on students nation-wide to strengthen the movement to Drive Out the Bush Regime because the World Can’t Wait!”

John Robinson, one of the student organizers facing possible expulsion is unapologetic, “We will not be intimidated…The actions of the Hampton Administration and the increasingly frequent campus repression happening national ultimately threaten us all.” He and other organizers have been speaking to the media and reaching out to academics to support their demand that Hampton not suppress free speech and political protest.

The World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime has been supported by Harold Pinter, Jane Fonda, Ed Asner, Russell Banks, Cornel West, Studs Terkel, Gore Vidal and many others. They held protests on November 2nd in 70 cities with thousands of students walking out of more than 200 schools. Their Call states, “The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.”

World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime spokesperson Sunsara Taylor comments, “We see this attack on these students as part of the dramatic escalation of repression and criminalization of protest that has taken place under the Bush regime. These students were acting on what millions of people today feel; that the direction the Bush administration is taking the country and the world – from the torture, to the lies, to the remaking of the Supreme Court – is intolerable, illegitimate, and must be reversed. We aim to defeat the attacks on these students and drive out the Bush regime!”
####

OMG Otter!!

Welcome back, my favorite Lutra canadensis! How's tricks? I want to hear all of it!!

Arbusto est falso, Loutre est magnifico!

"These pin-heads running around going, “Get out of Iraq now” don’t know what they are talking about. These are the same people before Hitler invaded in WWII that were saying, “He’s not such a bad guy.” They don’t get it."

I cannot understand O'Reilly. He and I have two things in common... the facts that we've never served our country in the armed forces and that neither one of us is an accreditted historian. Where does this "independent" (also known as a Fox Entertainment tool) get off even suggesting that a decorated war veteran like Murtha is a pin-head with respects to a topic such as war. There is no one more qualified to give suggestions or demands of the U.S. occupation than one who has served not only in combat, but in a war which so closely resembles the one we are fighting today. We had no plan for victory in Vietnam, and we have no plan for victory in Iraq. We had no exit plan for Vietnam, and we have no exit plan for Iraq. We failed to reassess the war in Vietnam resulting in catastrophic results, and we have failed to reassess the war in Iraq resulting in continued, unnecessary loss of lives, both American and Iraqi. Lastly we failed two more generally accepted criteria for war. We did not wait for a last resort in either Vietnam or Iraq, and we entered a war in both cases by choice without a reasonable chance of success.

Most importantly, George W. Bush has failed to learn from past mistakes, both his own and of our past leaders. If 500,000 troops could not control and conquer Vietnam, how dare a president today suggest and assume even 150,000 troops could subdue a resistance in Iraq, a country of 25 million. There is a reason why Bush I chose not to move on to Baghdad after the Persian Gulf War, just as there was a reason for Truman firing General MacArthur when the radical general wanted to move into China after WWII. These are the problems that arise from electing a president who fails the most elemantary of tests in history and presidential leadership. For a president who has made foreign policy, namely the "War on Terror" the epicenter of his presidency, he is being dragged down by such a choice as easily as LBJ was in the 1960s. The difference here is that LBJ was a master of domestic policy, and never claimed to know anything about foreign policy, while Bush would like us to believe that he is our "War President", when he is as effective as one who admittedly knew very little on the subject.