« The Presidential Spokesidiot | Main | Pork: The Other Mission Accomplished »
The Green Table
In 1932, the ballet choreographer Kurt Jooss created a piece called “The Green Table.” The opening section has men with large heads, in suits, leaning across a table (it is green); they begin gesticulating at each other, posturing, posing, grandstanding—clearly we are in a world of high-status power brokers. The music (composed by Fritz Cohn) is rich and complex, and reflects the periodic “making nice” that shifts suddenly into discord that the dancers, too, reflect.
Enter Death. Death is immediately demanding and relentless, highly patterned and predictable, but frighteningly strong. Death appears as a solo at first, but eventually makes an appearance within the folk-based and urban scenarios that follow, dancing with a soldier, a weary young woman, and carrying off an older woman, a mother, who is ready to go with him.
The first soldier section is full of flag-waving; young men leap about the stage determined and proud; ready to fight. It is only later in the piece that we see the price paid and Death is a constant reminder of what that price is.
At the end of the piece, the men around the green table reappear and repeat the movement of the opening section. Absolutely nothing has changed.
I think of this piece often lately; it is one of the most beautifully crafted anti-war statements I have ever seen, but moreover, the memory of it chills my bones when I think about the men (and women) of the White House sitting around a table, posturing and grandstanding for each other, planning their profiteering, so deeply unaware of how strong Death is, and how close, and how what they are plotting within affects what happens without.
I thought of it, standing outside the White House for weeks, looking through the fence and wondering, if one day, one of them would reach across the green table and act with reason, or of one of them would grab another by the neck and strangle him until the life drained out of him.
I thought of it last night, as Congress debated the Iraq War and whether we should end it soon. As in the ballet, do the patterns just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, infinitum? Or can we finally begin to understand that we must act?
Karen...WOW!!!
Oops! I didn't see there is a new thread... Repost from last thread....
Lawmakers Erupt in Heated War Debate
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905Z.shtml
Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday as a debate over whether to withdraw American troops from Iraq descended into a fury over President Bush's handling of the war and a leading Democrat's call to bring the troops home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY didn't the Dems call the bluff of the neoCons and vote to bring the troops home immediately?!?!?!? Tsk, tsk, tsk... that's a tactical error that will come back to haunt the Dems who are up for re-election in '06, since they will be accused of wanting the illegal, unjustified, immoral, and unethical Iraq war to continue.... The neoCon candidates will call those Dems warmongering hawks.... and it will lose elections for Dems in '06, IMHO.
"Stay the course?!?" WHAT course?!? Attacking Iraq had no course or objective other than to control Iraq's oil (per PNAC and for the sake of the monstrous ego of The Cretin).... If people aren't aware of THAT unpleasant truth by now, they have been in a coma since 2000.
WHY are prominent Dems promoting a "phased withdrawal?!?" Staying the course and phasing a withdrawal will NEVER happen while The Cretin is pResident will only get more of our people and Iraqi people killed.... While The Cretin is pResident there will only be token training of Iraqi troops to keep order once we pull out, and untrained troops to keep order between religious factions in Iraq will be the justification for keeping a US military presence in Iraq. (Weren't Iraqi military personnel trained before The Cretin ordered the invasion? Why the imperialistic tone on the part of US war-makers that makes Iraqi people helpless and backward children who need to be told what to do???)
By implication, I can only surmise that some prominent Dems are receiving a lot of PAC money from big oil companies, and that's why they are advocating such a slow withdrawal (or no withdrawal) of troops from Iraq, and that's why they have been acting like scared little submissive puppies without a voice since 2000....
Well, they'll figure it out when they lose elections next year....
NonnyO,
I think they voted no because it only a political ploy of the right since it was not even a thought out plan on how to get them out, what type of accountablilty with making sure it would happen.
It seemed more like another blank check to George with no real timeline.
I'm not really sure. It seemed very political and partison and it wasn't Murtha's plan.
I think maybe that's why they voted no. There just wasn't any 'meat' in the bill.
Maybe someone else can explain!
Karen -
Good thread header....
At the end my thought was: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
While our idiotic legislators debate immediate withdrawal vs. phased withdrawal from the illegal war in Iraq, people will keep on being killed.
At this immediate moment in time, I do not believe anything will change until (maybe) after the inauguration in Jan. '09... IF a president is elected who advocates an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We've all heard the sound byte of The Cretin saying that as long as he's president the troops will stay in Iraq. Normally he only lies every time he opens his mouth, but on that one statement, I believe him. As long as he's pResident, absolutely nothing will change, and we can anticipate hearing about more death and destruction.
The Danse Macabre.......
11/19/05
Dear Mr. Bush:
I would like to extend my hand and invite you to join us, the mainstream American majority. We, the people -- that's the majority of the people -- share these majority opinions:
1. Going to war was a mistake -- a big mistake. (link)
2. You and your administration misled us into this war. (link)
3. We want the war ended and our troops brought home. (link)
4. We don't trust you. (link)
Now, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. Iraq was going to be your great legacy. Now, it's just your legacy. It didn't have to end up this
way.
This week, when Republicans and conservative Democrats started jumping ship, you lashed out at them. You thought the most damning thing you
could say to them was that they were "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party." I
mean, is that the best you can do to persuade them to stick with you -- compare them to me? You gotta come up with a better villain. For heaven's sakes, you had a hundred-plus million other Americans who think the same way I do -- and you could have picked on any one of them!
But hey, why not cut out the name-calling and the smearing and just do the obvious thing: Come join the majority! Be one of us, your fellow Americans! Is it really that hard? Is there really any other choice? George, take a walk on the wild side!
Your loyal representative from the majority,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
NonnyO:
What Hastert did was to twist Murtha's intent, which is to withdraw as most reasonably possible from Iraq (hopefully by the next six months).
What Haster WANTED was to paint the Democrats into a corner by framing how they vary in opinion about HOW the withdrawal should be staged--to DIVIDE the Democrats. What it did was force more moderate Republicans to SIDE with Democrats.
If you read the resolution, its a one-sentence statement with no timeline or plan or even clean-up--which is something we will need to consider since we made the mess in the first place, and the country is hemmorhaging from civil war.
What Hastert did was what is called a "CYNICAL" move, and the Democrats voted against the move's insincerity and politicizing of what REALLY is hurting the White House:
THEY ARE LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT NOT ONLY AMONGST MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS, AND NOW THEY'RE LOSING SUPPORT FROM WITHIN THE MODERATE FACTIONS OF THEIR OWN PARTY.
Make no mistake. Hastert's motion was TOTAL BS PR, nothing more. And EVERYONE sees right through it.
The CNN Quick Poll:
Do you think the United States should:
Stay the course in Iraq 3% 361 votes
Withdraw U.S. troops within six months 85% 11785 votes
Commit to do whatever it takes to win the war 13% 1740 votes
Total: 13886 votes ++
Posted by: sparrow at November 19, 2005 12:37 PM
According to the truthout article, it was the neoCon Repubs who brought up the "immediate withdrawal" of troops from Iraq.
Sheeples have a nanosecond attention span. By the time the political campaigning reaches a fevered pitch next year, the Dems will still be advocating ending that stupid war, and the neoCons will say: "Well, why didn't you vote to bring the troops home when the Repubs put immediate withdrawal to a vote last year?!? It's the Dems who want to keep this war going...." Then it will be the Repubs/neoCons who will look like the moral good guys for wanting to end the war (which they don't really want to do because of the robber oil barons, but it will make a good sound byte for political ads).
Of course it was a political ploy, and a bluff. But why didn't the Dems call their bluff?!? It could have worked to great political advantage for the Dems....
"Phased withdrawal" means the US military will still be in Iraq in Nov. '08, and many more people will have been killed by then.
Here is an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics Circle Award in Washington, DC. Feel free to forward it along if you feel more people may want to read it.
Sharon Olds is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed poets living in America today. Read to the end of the letter to experience her restrained, chilling eloquence.
Laura Bush-First Lady , The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it’s a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents—all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books,sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington , DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country—with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain—did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made “at the top” and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism—the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness—as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing—against this undeclared and devastating war. But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting “extraordinary rendition”: flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated.
"To cut and run would invite terrorism into our backyards, and no one wants to see troops fighting terrorism on American soil," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Friday night after the House, as planned, rejected a GOP-written resolution for immediate withdrawal.
The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, was 403-3.
Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.
That included Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the Democratic hawk whose call Thursday for pulling out troops set off a nasty, personal debate over the war.
"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months...[snip]
NonnyO:
This is NOT going to go away, not with the majority of Americans now opposed to the war and Bush's approval ratings plummeting.
Keep up the visibility of the opposition. That's how sheeple are awakened...
Halliburton Case Is Referred to Justice Department
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111905Y.shtml
Pentagon investigators have referred allegations of abuse in how the Halliburton Company was awarded a contract for work in Iraq to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation.
Posted by: Nikko at November 19, 2005 01:11 PM
True, it's not going to go away, Nikko....
But by election day 2008 I anticipate the debate about immediate vs. phased withdrawal of troops from the illegal war in Iraq to still be going on.
While the legislators haggle, people will die.
Suicide bomber attacks funeral processesion
At least 36 dead, 50 injured; separate market attack kills 13
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide attacker killed at least 36 people and wounded 50 more in a Shiite funeral procession Saturday north of Baghdad, while a car bomb near a market just outside the capital killed 13 and wounded 21, police said.
The funeral was attacked at sunset while dozens of people were offering condolences to Raad Majid, the head of the municipal council in Abu Saida, for the death of his uncle, police officials said. Abu Saida is near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.
The suicide attacker drove his car into the gathering and detonated the bomb, the command center said. Ambulances and police rushed from Baqouba, as well as other nearby towns, to help in the rescue operations.
Late Saturday, the provincial police command reported that 36 people were dead and 50 were injured in the attack.
The market explosion occurred earlier near the Diyala Bridge area just southeast of Baghdad as dozens of people shopped, police Col. Nouri Ashour said. The dead included five women.
Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers surrounded a house in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, after reports that al-Qaida in Iraq members were inside, said Mosul police spokesman Brig. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri.
Almost immediately, a fierce firefight broke out, and three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves. Five more died fighting, while four police officers also were killed, he said.
A U.S. soldier whose vehicle was deliberately rammed by an Iraqi car Thursday near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, died of his injuries, the U.S. command said Saturday.
The soldier, from the 101st Airborne Division, was being treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany when he died Friday, a statement said.
At least 2,085 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Men and Women will remain the currency for this administrations political agenda until the people decide otherwise.
The poet Sharon Olds saw through the hypocrisy of this white house, more people will see the same. When enough people stop accepting the sllyness known as "staying the course" and demand an accounting and actual strategy this white house falls.
There is no strategy, there was no foundation nor evidence that would support the invasion of Iraq. There can never be an accounting of the decision to invade Iraq.
The cost in blood, in debt, the damage this has caused the US worldwide, the increase to energy costs, will be laid upon this white house, and the people that supported them.
Hahaha ha.
I've been sitting on the old thread wondering why I wasn't seeing more posts.
Karen,
O.M.G. that is just beautiful, and so true and poignant. (I'm still all teared up.) Same actions, only everyone thinks this is the only time this music has been played, and this dance has been danced. Art says things we can never say.
NonnyO,
Repost from previous thread, where I was waiting for you all to post.
NonnyO,
It's classic Rove to put the opposition in lose-lose positions. He does it at every turn.
From Aimzzz's link above:
"Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." "
They couldn't in any good conscience vote for the Republican alternative. It would have left our troops to be slaughtered as they withdrew, according to one explanation coming from the floor last night.
Now they spin, spin away.....We need to clarify, and clarify quick and strong, IMO.
We NEED to get the word out there LOUD AND STRONG that the proposal the Republicans gave the House last night was for immediate withdrawal period.
Three steps forward, one step back.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 19, 2005 01:19 PM
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 01:26 PM
NonnyO
This is one thing that has me uncomfortable. If the vote last night was sincere, why was it an 'all or nothing' with no time alloted to really ADD specifics to it?
Why did they spend HOURS smearing Murtha--even though I only witnessed an hour and a half of the smear?
Why didn't they add clauses and benchmarks that would give specific frames in which things would get done and people would be held accountable?
I mean...if their bill was sincere...wouldn't they have discussed THOSE issues instead of calling people cowards and unpatriotic and saying, "But the troops feel deserted..." That type of thing?
IF they were indeed sincere, then the conversation would have been, more like:
1. Why are we leaving. (Reason a, b, c...)
2. HOW it will be done. (Directions a, b, c...)
3. What will be the accountablility? (directions a, b, c...)
Look, I'm all for people discussing and analyzing the finer points of withdrawal, but I shutter at the complete waste of time they spent smearing people.
OH..Additionally, in the middle of it, some confused Representative insisted they were voting on Murtha's bill and when someone disagreed, the Chairman said, "I wouldn't be so sure about that!"
It was clarified and withdrawn later, but imo, it was a clear sign they were trying to use it later to say Murtha's idea had been voted down.
The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
They couldn't in any good conscience vote for the Republican alternative. It would have left our troops to be slaughtered as they withdrew, was one explanation coming from the floor last night.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 19, 2005 01:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everything would hinge on the meaning of the word "deploy"/deployment (American Heritage Dictionary): Deploy: "To distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically." "To put into use or action." Knowing the meaning of the word deployment makes all the difference, because the Repub/NeoCon wording only means the US would cease sending more military personnel to Iraq. It doesn't say a bloody thing about bringing the ones who are already there home, or withdrawing from Iraq immediately or in the future; the way it's worded it only means we would cease sending more troops. The ones already there could be stationed there indefinitely, even if no more troops are sent (and it would mean no rotation of troops).
Why didn't anyone explain it that way last night? Now there will be erroneous claims all over the place about voting against "immediate withdrawal" of US troops from Iraq, and the usual mud-slinging about immediate withdrawal vs. timetables and phased withdrawals. The proposal everyone voted against last night doesn't say anything about "immediate withdrawal." It just says "cease deployment." The concepts do NOT mean the same thing.....
Mea culpa. I read the article too fast and didn't see the wording... it's too far down the page, and the NY Times author Schmitt should have put it at the top.
Staying in Iraq is going to get our people slaughtered anyway.... It's a lose-lose situation, no matter what, until all of the US military is removed from Iraq, along with coalition forces.
I do not believe our people will be slaughtered as they leave; that's a disingenuous claim by the warmongers (it scares the sheeples into accepting their claims that the US military has to stay in Iraq for all these imaginary reasons they keep inventing - like the sheeples aren't paranoid enough already). The #1 terrorist recruiting "tool" is still The Cretin, and US military personnel are his front people in the line of fire (whether any of them agree with The Cretin's war or not), and as long as they stay in Iraq, they will be in danger of being killed or wounded by Iraqis who are patriotic to their own country and fighting the US military as invaders. (We would do the same if the situation were reversed and someone invaded the US, for which we would be called "patriots.")
I still advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq (it wouldn't take any longer to withdraw than it did to deploy them), pay guilt money to the Iraqi people, let them rebuild their own country (which means the US taxpayer doesn't have to pay the exhorbitant salaries of imported Halliburton or KBR or other workers from the US or other countries, and the Iraqi people who lost their jobs when The Cretin invaded will be put back to work so they can feed their families), and let the Iraqi people decide what kind of government they want to have. The US should butt out and mind its own business....
Here's a link to a great video of Murtha on Hardball. This guy is GREAT! Even Matthews shut up for him :-)
http://dissent.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_dissent_archive.html#113236899075726009
I disagree. It cannot be clearer to everyone - even the politically clueless Americans who don't read a newspaper or follow the news - who wanted this war, who promoted this war and who started this - George Bush and Dick Cheney and the Neo Con Cabal.
The "vote" in the House WAS NOT on Murtha's proposal. It was on a phony Republican trojan horse, introduced, I believe by Duncan Hunter - NOT BY MURTHA OR THE DEMOCRATS.
""Sheeples have a nanosecond attention span. By the time the political campaigning reaches a fevered pitch next year, the Dems will still be advocating ending that stupid war, and the neoCons will say: "Well, why didn't you vote to bring the troops home when the Repubs put immediate withdrawal to a vote last year?!? It's the Dems who want to keep this war going...." Then it will be the Repubs/neoCons who will look like the moral good guys for wanting to end the war (which they don't really want to do because of the robber oil barons, but it will make a good sound byte for political ads).
Of course it was a political ploy, and a bluff. But why didn't the Dems call their bluff?!? It could have worked to great political advantage for the Dems....
"Phased withdrawal" means the US military will still be in Iraq in Nov. '08, and many more people will have been killed by then.
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 12:55 PM""
AN ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL MEANS 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR. REPORTERS ASKED MURTHA AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO GET ALL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ. HE SAID IT WOULD TAKE 6 MONTHS.
In addition Murtha wanted to keep a small Fast Reaction force in the region (probably Kuwait) just in case there is an emergency (a terrorist cell forming in Iraq etc...). Other suggestions I have heard called for significant troops to be stationed on air craft carriers off shore and maintaining the no fly zones.
The fact that the House IS EVEN TALKING ABOUT WITHDRAWAL is a huge victory.
This Republican manoveuring will be seen for what it was - A LAST MINUTE SHAM, HELD LATE AT NIGHT, HOURS BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS LEAVING VACATION. WHEN MOST CONGRESSPEOPLE HAD NOT EVEN READ MURTHA'S PROPOSAL AND MURTHA'S PROPOSAL WAS NOT INTRODUCED.
PATHETIC
oops-wrong thread.
repost:
here's an interesting post I read:
Reading PO'd American's posting it's an interesting coincidence that senior Chinese and Palestinian defense officials were victims of the Jordanian bombing.
Add to that Keith Olberman's report on the correlation of terror alerts and embarrassing Republican incidents which need to be kept out of the news.
I agree with Dee Dee Myers assertion that given a choice between conspiracy and chaos we should pick chaos, but I am beginning to wonder if there are any limits on what people will do to move their political agenda forward.
An American journalist reported Iraqi election fraud so blatant that they have tape of one man openly filling out seven ballots. I doubt any Iraqi believes they will end up with a freely elected government.
With permanent American bases and a puppet regime installed, I don't think any Iraqi will believe we've helped them achieve a new statehood. Which will mean an ongoing and probably growing insurgency and a weak defense.
Only by the US pulling out will the Iraqi people ever believe that they should come together and work for a united Iraq.
They're a 5,000 year old civilization and the idea that they can only make it with American training wheels is both arrogant and absurd.
Posted by: Dons Blog at November 19, 2005 03:35 PM
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001096.html
Posted by: mkh at November 19, 2005 04:06 PM
this is the post he was responding to:
You got Proof Bush lied? Present the documents. He'll lose support from everyone. If you don't, shut your pie hole!"
Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003
*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)
Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.
The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....
The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03
President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."
Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."
All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post
http://bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
Posted by: Pissed Off American at November 19, 2005 02:47 PM
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001096.html
Posted by: mkh at November 19, 2005 04:08 PM
Posted by: ralpheh at November 19, 2005 04:07 PM
Hi Ralph,
If you read a few posts before this one, you'll see NonnyO reread that article and saw some information she missed.
But it's great to have some clarification since this act clearly has been spun in the media.
5 U.S. Troops Killed Today
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber detonated his car in a crowd of Shiite mourners north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing at least 36 people and raising the death toll in two days of attacks against Shiites to more than 120. Five American soldiers died in roadside bombings.
In the north, U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a suspected al-Qaida hideout in Mosul and at least seven insurgents died — three committing suicide to prevent capture, Iraqi authorities said. Four Iraqi policemen also were killed and 11 U.S. troops wounded, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.
The five American soldiers — assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division — died in a pair of roadside bombings near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. command said in a statement. Five others from the same unit were wounded.
Another soldier from the 101st died in a U.S. hospital in Germany of injuries suffered two days ago when his vehicle was deliberately rammed by an Iraqi car near Beiji, the U.S. command said Saturday.
At least 2,090 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Posted by: ralpheh at November 19, 2005 04:07 PM
Talking about withdrawal and enacting legislation that will mandatorily withdraw troops are two different things.
How long will they talk before they enact legislation that mandates anything The Cretin and his administration do not want? A year? Two years? I noticed in 2001 Congress certainly gave away their power and their rights and responsibilities to The Cretin fast enough and allowed him to LIE his way into attacking Iraq for no reason, and there is no longer a balance of power between the three branches of government. Power is all consolidated in the Executive branch with enough secrecy to choke a herd of horses. That needs to be remedied....
The last five years have taught me that the majority of people in the Senate and the House are All Talk, No Action (unless they are passing legislation that favors The Cretin and/or his Corporate Cronies). Congress of Wimps, as I've called them before - The Cretin barks, they roll over and give him whatever he wants - I'd expect that of neoCons, but too many Dems have disappointed me too many times in the last five years. Blowing hot air to say a lot of words still accomplishes nothing. IF/When Congress actually DOES something..., restores the balance of power, enacts legislation without loopholes (etc.)..., and generally acts like they have something resembling common sense, maybe I'll change my tune.
For now... NOT.
Sorry, ralpheh.... I'm old and cynical, and if Senators and Reps want my approval (or my vote and/or support) after these last five disastrous years, they are going to first have to PROVE to me that they can actually DO something other than blow smoke and fill the air with empty words.... The time for talking is over... it's time now for some common-sense ACTION...!!!
NonnyO,
Dang, you're good, girl!
Here's what my dictionary had to say about the word deployment.
Noun 1. deployment - the distribution of forces in preparation for battle or work
preparation, readying - the activity of putting or setting in order in advance of some act or purpose; "preparations for the ceremony had begun"
redeployment, redisposition - the withdrawal and redistribution of forces in an attempt to use them more effectively.
This is silly. Why on earth did they word it that way?
You caught it, NonnyO. Good find.
Amazing no one caught it last night during the debate over the Hastert resolution.
Looks like they voted against not sending more troops to Iraq.
NonnyO
Excellent catch!
They're a 5,000 year old civilization and the idea that they can only make it with American training wheels is both arrogant and absurd.
Posted by: Dons Blog at November 19, 2005 03:35 PM
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001096.html
Posted by: mkh at November 19, 2005 04:06 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Cretin and most of his admininistration have taken arrogance to new heights of absurdity.
I concur with that quote above, mkh. The Cretin has gone into Iraq with all the imperiousness of the ancient conquistadors who destroyed so much of civilization on the North and South American continents some 500 years ago.
The exquisite beauty of the art and artifacts and architecture of ancient Iraq can leave one speechless with awe just looking at the pictures - I can only barely imagine the reality of seeing those things in person. I'm scared we will find out our military has destroyed the ancient art and artifacts and architecture of the ancient world....
Any people who believe the US can rule Iraq better than they can rule themselves has not studied ancient history.... Iraq is the "Cradle of Civilization" and the site of the alleged Garden of Eden.... It is presumptuous to think for one second that the US can rule Iraq through a puppet government any better than they can rule themselves with elected officials of their own choosing....
""For now... NOT.
Sorry, ralpheh.... I'm old and cynical, and if Senators and Reps want my approval (or my vote and/or support) after these last five disastrous years, they are going to first have to PROVE to me that they can actually DO something other than blow smoke and fill the air with empty words.... The time for talking is over... it's time now for some common-sense ACTION...!!!""
Posted by: NonnyO at November 19, 2005 04:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE ONLY "ACTION" THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IS CAUSING 30 OR 40 HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO LOSE THEIR SEATS IN THE 2006 ELECTION. THEN YOU WOULD SEE CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM BOTH DEMS AND REPUBS.
My Congressional seat is considered "Safe Republican". I don't think we can beat the encumbent Republican. SO.......
PEOPLE HAD BETTER START THINKING NOW WHAT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL SEATS CAN BE TAKEN BACK IN 2006. IF THE CONGRESS STAYS IN CONTROL OF THE RIGHTWINGNUTT REPUBLICANS AFTER 2006 IT IS A VERY GOOD BET THAT WE WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, AT LEAST.
I don't know who your Congresspeople are. My Democrat Congress people from Michigan Levin, Conyers, Stabenow etc... have been at the forefront of criticizing Bush and the war. Both Stabenow and Levin voted against the authorization of force. Levin just came out with a report that says all the WMD intelligence was distorted and exaggerated.
BUSH AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED THIS WAR....
I DO NOT FAULT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS...