« Why Iraq Has No Army | Main | Fair and Unbalanced »
The Shifting Sands Of The Iraq War
As Iraq War hawk John Murtha spoke today, calling for the immediate scheduling of redeployment of US forces from Iraq, one could sense the shift in American attitude towards the War in Iraq.
The full text of the statement by the fifteen term veteran Democratic Congressman and 38-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps:
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."
"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."
"For 2 ½ years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction - but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.
"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.
"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.
"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.
"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.
"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
The House Resolution which accompanies the statement can be found here.
[Editor's Note: The link above connects the reader to the DCCC website. Please be advised that the Democracy Cell Project does not endorse any political candidate or party. We link to that site only because neither Congressman Murtha's website nor the Congressional Legislative Activity website had the text of the resolution available at posting time. Thank you.]
Murtha's press conference is being telecast by C-Span right now - on C-Span 1.
He is a very persuasive - a great speech
Good thread - right on the money.
We need to keep up relentless pressure, as the administration tries to bolster their war effort in the run-uup to December elections & things are not going well. We need to break through the smokescreen of lies and propaganda.
http://www.gp.org/
Green Party is callilng all bloggers to get the media to report on the 2nd illegal election!
Hey all, keep up the good works!
Chuck in Doha hitting the sack...
We need to keep up relentless pressure, as the administration tries to bolster their war effort in the run-uup to December elections & things are not going well. We need to break through the smokescreen of lies and propaganda.
Posted by: DiAnne at November 17, 2005 02:46 PM
Di:
That is EXACTLY what Hackett said the other night in SF. The PUBLIC needs to pressure the White House to change tactics on Iraq--admit the war was a mistake, and order the Pentagon to come up with a realistic withdrawal strategy that will get deployed.
Murtha's statement is pretty close. Funny that people who have actually BEEN IN COMBAT can think alike.
RATCHETING UP THE RHETORIC:
Rep. Hastert on Murtha from "RAW STORY"
"But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.
"This is the highest insult to the brave men and women serving overseas. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our citizens, our way of life and our ideals of freedom and democracy. And they have done excellent work. In the four years since September 11th, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 major terrorist attacks. Three of those attacks were planned on U.S. soil.
"I have known John Murtha to be a long-term veteran of this institution. He has stood up for our troops and has helped to provide them with the right equipment to do their job. We all saw the same pained faces among Americans when terrorists slammed into the Twin Towers. Did he see the faces the rest of America saw when terrorists plowed into the Pentagon or when the plane that was headed for a Washington target went down in Pennsylvania? I saw the faces that day, and, Mr. Murtha, that was no illusion."
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Hastert_saddened_by_Murtha_remarks_1117.html
Great Article from Knight Ridder:
Posted on Wed, Nov. 16, 2005
In challenging war's critics, administration tinkers with truth
By James Kuhnhenn and Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON _ President Bush called Democratic critics of how he sold the Iraq war to the world "irresponsible" five times Thursday during a brief news conference in South Korea.
Bush said he agreed with Vice President Dick Cheney, who on Wednesday had accused some unnamed senators who oppose the administration's Iraq war policy of lacking "backbone" and making "reprehensible charges" that Bush and his aides "purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."
Cheney's rough-edged remarks, and the president's unequivocal endorsement of them, were the latest in the Bush administration's new campaign to challenge critics of how it sold the war, accusing them of twisting the historical record about how and why the war was launched. Yet in accusing Iraq-war critics of "rewriting history," Bush, Cheney and other senior administration officials are tinkering with the truth themselves.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm
Wow, I was about to turn in and went ahead and read the Murtha statement, which is a powerful statement. Then I saw the Hastert statement that Fe just posted and I have to say that the Hastert statement is truely outrageous and one of the most dishonest and insulting things I have heard from a congressman in quite some time -- and that is saying something. What Hastert said is also belligerent and the tone threatening. We can't back down in the face of these statements. Mr. Hastert's statement has jut doubled my resolve as I am becoming convinced that there is absoutely no good faith there at all. You can't negotiate with people like that -- they just want to escalate from bad to worse. You have to walk away from the table and deal with them in a different way, like with a school-yard bully.
OK, now I am turning in!
Chuck in Doha
PS: And Fe, yes that is a contracts negotiation strategy at times!
Chuck:
Also don't forget the other strategy:
'WITHHOLDING THE CHECK".
'night.
Densy Hastert... way to use 9/11 again as the main argument for the war in Iraq... (and no, I won't buy that beachfront property in Phoenix from you either).
By the way Chuckles, this nation disrupted MANY major terrorist attacks on our soil until GWB came along.
And thanks for insulting the Europeans as well, they've known their share of conflict on their soil in the past century, so to refer to them as cowering is exceptionally insulting...
Something tells me they are fighting terrorists on their soil as a punishment for our actions... but that's just me.
It must get confusing as to whether or not to shoot yourself in the foot, or stick it in your mouth... your foot I mean.
p.s.
Frist, Bill: No military service.
Gilchrest, Wayne: U.S. Marine Corps; served in Viet Nam and was wounded in action.
Gingrich, Newt: No military service.
Giuliani, Rudy: No military service.
Hagel, Chuck: Served with valor in Viet Nam; awarded 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
Hastert, Dennis: No military service.
Murtha's Speech is all over AOL News.
The part of the speech I saw was extremely moving and powerful. He talked about the injured soldiers - mostly from bomb blasts.
Here is the AOL Poll
What do you think of Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
I applaud it 53%
I think it's irresponsible 33%
I have some reservations 14%
Total Votes: 30,991
Note on Poll Results
Well, I hesitate to repost this rant, but, I think I realized some things today, after clearing the cobwebs out of my mind that have ensued after listening to all the S-P-I-N about
the Iraq war. (Blech.)
So, here it is.
Posted by: chuck at November 17, 2005 01:28 PM
Thanks.
I had read that China is busy consuming a vast majority of oil from sources other than Iraq, and that we need Iraqi oil to try to balance out the equation and keep us competitive. If that were true, I don't suppose we would be interested in sharing Iraqi oil with China in an attempt to gain support and thus ensure peace.
Which brings us around again to the topic of today's thread. "Why Iraq has no Army."
You can't tell me that a country with the military and financial might of the U.S. can't bring order to Iraq, can you?
If you stop and think about that......for a minute....you can see how ludicrous the idea is.
Why are we so confused as to the solution to this dilemma? Maybe because we are supposed to be "confused"? No one knows a solution, because we have all been "dumbed down". The solution, if there was a solution desired, would probably be to put more forces over there and get the Iraq army equipped, stabilize their infrastructure, then get out. Is that what they are doing? NOOOooo.
What ARE they doing? Keeping a troop level there that CAN NOT ensure success. NOT TRAINING Iraqi soldiers to build them up so they can take over.
Not adequately repairing their infrastructure, and encouraging their self-sufficiency.
No wonder the "insurgents" are pissed. We have invaded their country, demolished a great part of their infrastructure, and are dilly-dallying around and not ensuring their self-sufficiency, while we build bases and threaten Iran and Syria.
We need to smell the coffee.
l. It is ludicrous to think that ANY country that feels it just MUST wage a pre-emptive strike on another country would do so without being almost certain that it could win the war once engaged in battle. To wage a pre-emptive strike without being aware of your success potential is suicide, in my opinion, and there should be a LAW against it. And that's just if it was indeed a lack of foresight.
2. Which leads me, once again, to the conclusion that I am not sure we ever WANTED TO WIN THIS WAR outright. Not if being in the region gives us access to build military bases and wage more battles with Iraq's neighboring countries to ensure strategic access to the region and it's oil.
3. I am NO LONGER BUYING any rhetoric that this administration "made a mistake", or "didn't understand Iraq and the solution", or "underestimated the enormity of the task at hand". This administration may be many things, but stupid is not one of them, IMO. To say they are inept is actually a compliment when you consider what they really are, which is, in my opinion, deliberate, calculated profiteers who don't worry their pretty heads about the death that comes to those who are unfortunate enough to get in the way or be used as pawns in their global chess game.
4. While we are busy yelling how "inept" this administration is, Halliburton, G.E. and other war profiteers are laughing all the way to the bank.
5. Anyone who could sell Dubya to the United States is smart enough to know how to win in Iraq and get our troops home.
Dubya said 2 weeks ago, "As long as I am President, we will stay in Iraq." And, you know what? I think he means it.
And, it is my opinion that if the neocons win in '06 (let alone in '08), we can kiss peace goodbye, along with our domestic stability and opportunity. What then, would happen to our freedoms? Well, we should be ready to kiss them goodbye too, if they win in '06 and '08.
We must stop this death machine that wants to kill our children and our very freedom and opportunity and health and well being.
THEY ARE PLAYING FOR KEEPS. WE NEED TO DO THE SAME.
And now, I am back to work. Thanks everybody for the great articles and links today. I look forward to reading them later tonight.
This kos diarist took the time to document for us a lengthy correspondence that she ended up having with a fundie who was convinced that Christians are persecuted in the US. Well worth reading and using excerpts for those of us with similar acquaintances and relatives.
Tackling the Myth of Christian Persecution
by irishwitch
Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:11:43 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/17/151143/76
Also hit the recommend button if you feel so moved
Posted by: dwahzon at November 17, 2005 03:56 PM
Mine are now convinced I am "backsliding" and headed straight for hell now that I am no longer attending their church.
I also think for myself. Oh, my.....
LOL
From Baghdad Burning...Riverbend. Brace yourself it's a heartbreaking piece.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
THERE IS NO WAY "5 DRAFT DEFERMENTS" CHENEY OR ANY OF THE REST OF THE GANG OF THE NEO-CON CHICKENHAWKS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SMEAR AN EX MARINE, LIKE MURTHA.
THE TIDE HAS TURNED.......
Posted by: ralpheh at November 17, 2005 04:14 PM
Ralph,
They smeared Kerry. They smeared Cleland. They smeared McCain.
What has to happen is that everyone else needs to say, "Smearing is the mo of the playground bully. Grow up GWB and deal with the problems you've caused!"
They smeared Kerry. They smeared Cleland. They smeared McCain.
What has to happen is that everyone else needs to say, "Smearing is the mo of the playground bully. Grow up GWB and deal with the problems you've caused!"
Posted by: sparrow at November 17, 2005 04:26 PM
It wouldn't work, not this time. The nation is sick of it. Bush's approval rating is somewhere between 38% and 34%. Fallows says we will be in Iraq another 5 years at least if we want to "build" an army and a country. The U.S. military has a five years plan and a 10 plan for Iraq. The military says they are stretched to the limit and can't meet recruitment goals.
Listen to the speech....
The Patriot Act takes away many of our cherished civil liberties and allows the government to invade our privacy with little restraint, oversight or accountability. It is imperative that you call your legislative representative and senators to tell them to vote against the Patriot Act reauthorization bill
I go to get a cinnamin roll & I can't believe how much you guys get done!!!!!!
Sparrow
I sent the gp.com article to Elizabeth - about blogging to get media to cover 2nd stolen election - thanks!
Ralpheh
I just met a gentleman at my son's bakery who was reading the Fallows article - it's serious stuff but it's the "meat" re how money, time and human life (on all sides) has been wasted in Iraq for almost 3 years now (not to mention ever since we started "military adventures" in the mideast
& I heard from a Vietnam vet friend who just read Muhrta's speech. "More bad news for Bush. I bet he is suicidal. He has been able to leave all his previous messes when he became bored or f'ked them up. He's stuck (and so are we) for another 3 years." He also alerted me that southeast Asia is developing a formidable terrorist network & targeting US & its allies - they want a network encompassing Malaysia, Singapore, Phillipines etc.
Fe -
I can't imagine Hastert will make more friends by blasting a Marine vet who is well-known in Congress
Monkey -
I'm reposting March of the Chickenhawks - it may be a cartoon but it's meaty - tells you what type of individual we are dealing with & you will recognize them all:
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
Truth Shall Prevail -
I'm sure you are back at work now, but I agree with your analysis. If you read or hear the whole Fallows article/interview, he outlines the Iraq war so far in 3 phases. The first thing we did was go over there with an army 1/3 the size of Saddam's. Then after we blew Bagdad to smithereens, we fired their Army without paychecks. Then after about 6 months, we decided to recruit and train them again & by then, many were pissed off & gone. It's about the dumbest thing imaginable.
No wonder we let them loot the treasures from the museums but headed straight to protect the oilfields. & Rumsfeld said something dumb - "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?" ... He was talking about the Cradle of Civilization.
& now Bush is taling about printing more Bibles in China. Chinese culture before Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, 2600 years before Christ, worshipped Shang Ti. They understood Him to be the creator and law-giver. They believed that He was never to be represented by an idol. When the Zhou Dynasty controlled China during the years 1066-770 B.C., the worship of Shang Ti was replaced by the worship of heaven itself, and eventually three other religions were spawned in China.
Compared to that, Bush is a baby.
Reps. Duncan Hunter and Hastert are slamming Murtha.
Here is how the AOL Poll on Murtha's proposal stands now:
What do you think of Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
I applaud it 52%
I think it's irresponsible 34%
I have some reservations 14%
Total Votes: 87,978
Note on Poll Results
Hastert:
9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11
Reid Snaps Back at Cheney on Senate Floor
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705A.shtml
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid gave the following speech on the senate floor last night: "In the last 24 hours, 10 of our brave soldiers have been killed in far off Iraq. On such a night, you would think Cheney would give a speech that honors the fallen and those still fighting by laying out a strategy for success. Instead we have the Vice President of the United States playing politics like he’s in the middle of a presidential campaign."
Not My Pres,
Well, I am working, but having a desk day today.
So from time to time I refresh and see the latest on our blog.
I CANNOT TELL YOU how angry I get when I hear this nonsense about Bush going to China and telling them to print more bibles.
He needs to read and apply the one he's got.
Open Letter to George's Mama
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan
November 17, 2005
EXCERPT:
"You said this in 2003, a little over a year before my dear, sweet Casey was killed by your son's policies:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" (Good Morning America, March 18, 2003)
Now I have something to tell you, Barbara. I didn't want to hear about deaths or body bags either. On April 04, 2004, three Army officers came to my house to tell me that Casey was killed in Iraq. I fell on the floor screaming and begging the cruel Angel of Death to take me, too. But the Angel of Death that took my son is your son."
MORE...http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05437.html
My 7 year old son just gleefully announced that "tomorrow is BLUE DAY AT MY SCHOOL!!!".
See, it's happening already.
Whoa, Monkey! Is it National Blue Day or something? Tomorrow is BLUE DAY at my son's preschool, too, and guess who it just so happens to be the classroom parent tomorrow?? Why, in a strange twist of fate and divine humor, that would be ME!!
Our peace group met tonight. We've had a hard time agreeing on the Iraq War once it started--some say we can't just get up and leave, and others say we have to do just that (we're a pretty moderate peace group, obviously :-). People's opinions have changed. The majority of the group think we should leave now.
Murtha is a brave and honorable man to say what so many of us know. Interesting how Murtha and Kucinich are now on the same page!
Dennis Hastert--another chickenhawk heard from...yeah, he knows all about war. If I recall correctly, Hastert was busy fighting the war of high school football coaching while others, like Jack Murtha, served and with honor and distinction in Korea ANd Viet Nam, first as an enlisted man, and then working up through the ranks to go to college and then OCS and become a Marine Corps officer.
Yeah, I am going to listen to LOTS of war strategy advice about the brave men and women from the self aggrandizing wimp.
Casey,
I think you should not hold back your true feelings here...
In full agreement,
Moi
"And another thing- you know when they say 'men dressed in Ministry of Interior uniforms' or 'men in official cars claiming to be from the Ministry of Interior', etc. when describing some horror committed by the new Iraqi security forces in the news? Here's a thought: they aren't 'claiming' and they aren't in costume- they actually ARE from the Ministry of Interior! One would think they'd do this covertly so as not to enrage Iraqis or humanitarian organisations, except that it doesn't matter to them because SCIRI and Da'awa aren't out to win hearts and minds. They have American favor- what more does one need in the New Iraq?
For over a year corpses have been turning up all over Baghdad. Corpses of people who are taken from their homes in the middle of the night (lately they've been more brazen- they just do everything in the light of day), and turn up dead somewhere. That isn't as disturbing as the reports about the bodies- the one I can't get out of my head is that many of the corpses are found with holes in the skull left by an electric drill.
I guess the lucky ones go to Abu Ghraib... "
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
AGAIN WITH THE DRILL HOLES...
SOOO..
Seen any good movies lately?
Karen...
Can you PLEASE get within shouting distance of Rummy and ask him on whos' order the Scorpion Brigade was created and what was there mission..??
When he denied knowing them before.. See, that HAD to be a lie.
Ask him about black and decker drills.
Oh nevermind....
Jakub Coltun
jakubcoltun@gmail.com
I feel that Mr. G. Bush is being simplistic in his rhetoric and egregiously neglectful with his inadequate incomplete military policies. The Military and each soldier must be adaptively proactive with responsible ethical and intelligent leadership. Stay the course and Stand up stand down sound bites are no way to achieve the goal of stability and longevity for the New Iraq.
I propose that we alter the dynamic in Iraq and the Middle East. Securing the perimeter (the borders) in cooperation with the Iraqi people and defense forces of Iraq should become the primary role of US and remaining coalition forces as well as swapping US forces for Nato and UN peacekeeping forces. This would accelerate the attrition of the insurgency and allow it to implode on itself, provided that it is done in controlled phases and with the Iraqi troops and police forces.
I have not fully fleshed out my thoughts on this so please discuss it further with me.
THIS IS WHAT IS APPALLING AND CRIMINAL ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION.
I want to cry and rage with frustration.
This is from Andrew Sullivan at Daily Dish who highlights a much longer piece at Obsidian Wing. I'll give you both links.
A CASE OF THE INNOCENT:
Just in case you think that habeas corpus does not matter, please read this detailed and harrowing post over to Obsidian Wings. It details the case of two Uighur detinees who have been cleared of all charges. They are innocent and the government accepts that they are innocent. But they are kept in Gitmo, in chairs, with their hands chained to the floor, in definitely. Money quote:
The government thinks it is perfectly acceptable not to inform counsel or the court when it determines that detainees are not enemy combatants, even though the allegation that they are enemy combatants is central to the justification for holding them. They seem to think, in addition, that it is acceptable to mislead counsel and the Court about the status of those detainees. They also think it is fine to keep those detainees at Guantanamo, to chain detainees who are not enemy combatants to the floor, and to deny them the right to communicate with anyone in the outside world, including relatives who think they are dead, and to confiscate things like photographs of their families as contraband. They claim that they cannot discuss the efforts they are making to place those detainees, and that they cannot release those detainees until those efforts, whatever they are, are completed, which will be "'soon' in kind of the hopeful sense of the word."
Remember that this occurred while these people still had some basic habeas corpus rights:
Had these detainees not had the right to file for habeas corpus, none of us would know that they existed, let alone be able to read details of their incarceration, and what our government had to say in its own defense.
But habeas rights do not solve everything. To the best of my knowledge, the Uighur detainees are still at Guantanamo. The detainee Willett described as "the sleepy-eyed young man with the shy smile and the gentle manner" is still in jail, cleared of all charges but unable to go free.
The Graham/Kyl/Levin amendment that just passed is better than Graham's first proposal. But it is important to remember that, as of now, these innocent men, handed over by bounty hunters in Pakistan, would have no access to courts. We would never have heard of them. They would be America's "disappeared". Anyone who cares about liberty in this country - a category that does not seem to include the bulk of Republicans any more - should be proud that the original Graham amendment did not pass. But chilled about what can now happen. In a free country. Whether you're innocent or guilty.
The Daily Dish item is here...
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_11_13_dish_archive.html#113224336676789933
The Obsidian Wings piece which has much more detail and is worth reading is here...
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/11/requiem.html#23more
November 17, 2005
Survey Shows a Revival of Isolationism Among Americans
By MEG BORTIN
Shaken by the Iraq war and the rise of anti-American sentiment around the world, Americans are turning inward, according to a Pew survey of United States opinion leaders and the general public.
The survey, conducted this fall and released today, found a revival of isolationist feelings among the public similar to the sentiment that followed the Vietnam War in the 1970's and the end of the Cold War in the 1990's.
But at the same time, the survey showed, Americans are feeling less unilateralist than in the past, appearing to indicate a desire for a more modest foreign policy.
Forty-two percent of Americans think that the United States should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," according to the survey, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the Council on Foreign Relations.
That is an increase of 12 percentage points since a poll taken in December 2002, before the American-led invasion of Iraq; at that time only 30 percent of Americans said the country should mind its own business internationally.
The result appeared to represent a rejection by the public of President Bush's goal of promoting democracy in other nations, a major plank of his administration's foreign policy.
"We're seeing a backlash against a bumbled foreign policy," said Stephen Van Evera, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He said Americans were concerned over the failure to make progress on North Korea and Iran, or in the fight against Al Qaeda, but he added, "The American people in particular are looking at Iraq and seeing nothing's working."
The war in Iraq "has had a profound impact on the way opinion leaders, as well as the public, view America's global role, looming international threats, and the Bush administration's stewardship of the nation's foreign policy," Pew said in its analysis of the poll.
The survey also found the following:
¶ Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the United States should play a shared leadership role, and only 25 percent want the country to be the most active of leading nations.
¶ Two-thirds of Americans say that there is less international respect for the United States than in the past. When asked why, strong majorities - 71 percent of the public, 88 percent of opinion leaders --cite the war in Iraq.
¶ Foreign affairs and security experts most often name India as a country likely to become a more important ally of the United States, while opinion leaders generally say France will decline in importance as an American partner. In the survey, Pew questioned 2,006 American adults from the general public and 520 influential Americans in the fields of news media, foreign affairs, security, state and local government, universities and research organizations, religious organizations, science and engineering, and the military.
Conducted from Sept. 5 to Oct. 31, the survey "reflects the major changes in the world that have occurred" since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Pew said. The margin of error for most questions was plus or minus 2.5 percent.
Asked how Pew chose the opinion leaders, Andrew Kohut, the director of the center, said, "We used the best listings that we could of people in this influential group."
He said the opinion leaders came from rosters of organizations like the Council of Foreign Relations, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as a list of governors and of mayors of American cities with a population of 80,000 or more.
In its analysis of the results, Pew said the Iraq war and continuing terrorism had "dramatically affected the way opinion leaders and the public look at potential threats from other countries."
While China was seen four years ago as representing the greatest threat to the United States, opinion leaders and the public now cite Iraq and North Korea as well as China, Pew said.
Regarding prospects for Iraq, a majority of opinion leaders believe that the United States will fail to establish a stable democracy, while the general public was more optimistic, with 56 percent expecting success.
Gloom was so deep, in fact, among the opinion leaders that at least 40 percent in each category predict that Iraq will split into three countries, representing Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Pew said.
On relations with Europe, the American public and opinion leaders agree that a strong partnership should be maintained, the survey found. At least 60 percent of each group of opinion leaders said a stronger European Union was good for the United States. In addition to France, however, some of the influential thinkers pointed to Germany - which also opposed the Iraq war - as becoming a less important ally.
The public lined up with opinion leaders in disapproving of the way President Bush is handling his job. Fifty-two percent of the public expressed disapproval; the figure soared to 87 percent among scientists and engineers.
Moreover, the poll found, "Pluralities in every group of influentials - as well as the public - attribute the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack in the U.S. to luck." Just a third of the respondents from the general public say it is "because the government has done a good job protecting the country."
Regarding the use of torture against terrorist suspects, the overwhelming majority of opinion leaders believe it can rarely if ever be justified. Among the public, however, 46 percent say it is often or sometimes justified.
Full poll results and analysis are available at www.people-press.org.
Brian Knowlton of The International Herald Tribune contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/national/17cnd-survey.html?ex=1289883600&en=696e616487624599&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Hawkish Cheney renews attack but attracts only flak
Vice-president's popularity and influence have waned in line with public support for Iraq conflict
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1877605,00.html
DICK CHENEY’S steely presence used to be seen as one of the great strengths of the Bush Administration. Not any more.
The 64-year-old Vice-President has re-emerged on to the public stage after weeks in the White House freezer with an attack on critics of the Iraq policy he did so much to promote.
But far from bolstering his President, Mr Cheney’s assault appeared to have merely encouraged growing criticism of his uncompromising style.
“The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we’re not going to let them rewrite history,” Mr Cheney said in a Wednesday night speech aimed at Democrats who accuse the White House of misleading America over Iraq.
He went on: “The suggestion that’s been made by some US senators that the President or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.
“The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.”
The speech, delivered to a conservative policy group, drew a furious response. Harry Reid, leader of the Senate’s Democrat minority, said that it showed the Administration planned to continue putting its political fortunes ahead of America’s needs.
John Kerry, the Democrats’ presidential candidate last year, said that it was “hard to name a government official with less credibilty on Iraq” than Mr Cheney. But the criticism came not just from Democrats. Chuck Hagel, a senior senator and Vietnam veteran, betrayed growing Republican unease by declaring: “The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonised for disagreeing with them.
“Suggesting that to challenge or criticise policy is undermining our troops is not democracy, nor what this country has stood for over 200 years.”
Throughout Mr Bush’s first term, Mr Cheney’s closeness to the President, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, earned him the reputation as one of the most powerful vice-presidents in history, and he was a leading advocate of the invasion of Iraq. But his popularity and influence have waned in line with public support for the Iraq conflict, and he is increasingly seen as a liability. His approval ratings have sunk to a five-year low. He was invisible after the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
One prominent Republican critic, Senator John McCain, a former prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, wants a ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees” in Iraq. It was another sign of Mr Cheney’s fading powers that Mr McCain’s amendment passed the Senate by 90-9, despite his opposition. His image took a further dent with reports that he is trying to negotiate an opt-out from the proposed legislation for the CIA.
Mr Cheney’s record in allegedly ramping up the case for war is under intense scrutiny in Washington, which has not forgotten statements such as his assertion in August 2002 that “on the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon”. In June last year he talked of Saddam Hussein’s “long-established ties with al-Qaeda”, proof of which remains elusive.
An ally of the Vice-President told Time magazine this week that “Cheney’s war is swallowing Bush’s presidency”.
The article, headlined “The long, hard autumn of Dick Cheney”, also pointed out that Mr Cheney’s lack of desire to seek the Oval Office for himself in 2008 freed him to risk his own standing on behalf of the President — but left him looking vulnerable when he started to lose his touch.
Mr Bush backed his deputy yesterday. Speaking in South Korea, he accused the Democrats of irresponsibly playing politics over Iraq. Dan Bartlett, a presidential adviser, said that Democrat attacks had crossed the line and required a “sustained response”.
But Mr Bush seems to be distancing himself from his Vice-President, who reportedly learnt secondhand of the President’s ill-fated nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and spent the difficult election week last week pheasant-hunting in South Dakota.
The President’s political imperative to put clear space between himself and Mr Cheney only increased when the Vice-President’s top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was indicted on charges relating to the CIA-leak scandal. The case could see Mr Cheney called to testify.
Fitz has been one busy busy man.
He has ALL of them in his sights.
Either hes a very very well disguised puppet.
Or he is gonna change the world all by himself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1877900-2,00.html
And another one bites the dust.
Say it ain't so
Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602147.html
It ain't so...
one of the blogs and I don't recall which one pointed out the fallacy of the reasoning in that article and then kept a tally of everywhere it was repeated.
Found it... here it is...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/17/72952/233
Posted by: Jakub Coltun at November 17, 2005 08:06 PM
It sounds like reasonable plans so far.
Perhaps these are the types of 'benchmarks' I heard Kerry referring to.
Beth,
I think we want people out ASAP but I don't know if a full retreat is possible or smart. AND that in a nutshell is the whole problem. We can't win. But if we leave are we making it worse? If we stay how many more soldiers will die for this lie.
I have never wanted to see someone impeached and charged with war crimes as I do with this administration. I'm sure this current administration and the Republican NeoCONS who support him and aid in the coverup of his crimes are the MOST CORRUPT EVER.
Get them all out! Then put smart COMPETENT people in to at least work together and figure out what to do.
... put smart COMPETENT people in to at least work together and figure out what to do.
Posted by: sparrow at November 17, 2005 08:51 PM
If people knew in Nov 2004 what they know now, that might actually have happened.
The smokescreen worked... the touchscreen didn't.
More thought-provoking articles and comments!
Matt,
The article on public opinion & growing isolationism - it makes me wonder if many people feel, even subconsciously, as I do - that some of the problems that have developed (such as the increase in terrorism) date back years and years - that foreign policy mistakes have been made for a long time. We have not been truly at peace even when we were not overtly at war, as we did things like propped up certain dictators, & influenced what happened in other countries via the CIA. Surely this has been no secret, even if most didn't know the details (some of which a public citizen can probably dig for and find, & others which the perpetrators may take to their graves).
Even with the American dream, the little white picket fences and all, surely most people sense in their hearts that we consume, relax & enjoy on the backs of the poor of the world. It isn't hard to find the statistics on what proportion of the world's population we make up & what proportion of the world's wealth & resources we use. Then within our country, a similar disparity in income & standard of living but not as profound as when looking at the whole globe.
I think there is alot of guilt and alot of denial. Like at work, I've been told by people with advanced degrees, "I don't follow the news because it's too depressing." So on some level they have to know, and if things aren't getting better, they at least know who is President!
I am always kind of shocked by the comments about Europe, as I feel they have many parallel problems. I think part of the isolationism is due to our restrictive & basic education - where is the geography, the history, the languages - their study seems to be a luxury not a basic requirement. I think it's shameful.
We could reach out to the world in many ways on a person-to-person level and the way our government operates military, intelligence & business seems to repel people from making the attempt. I still think it's our only hope, as I don't think governments are ever going to do it. The rich in each country are too greedy & those are the ones who work together!
Thanks dwahzon (08:45 PM)
If the goal was to control the bulk of the world's oil, by removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq, & we are never able to do that (I mean, we removed Saddam but he had an army of at least half a million & 40% of the people were his party & we have destabilized the country & military minds are calling it a quagmire) - maybe we will have to give up being a global superpower & maybe it would be a good thing. If it's really true that Kuwait & Saudi Arabia are exhausting their oil fields, if it's really true that drilling in Alaska would only help for a short time, if it's really true that we're nearing "peak oil," then it may just be a fact of life that the US will not call all the shots. I remember when Howard Dean took flak for once saying that maybe in the future we should not have such a big military - something like that. If the purpose of the big military is big wars to make big companies which make big weapons rich, as I have always suspected, then maybe he was right. There are too many people like Cheney who have never done anything but hunt yet they have a big personal arsenal & vicariously armchair quarterback real wars which affect real people (& he gets rich too!)
UK-- Downing St Memo:
Two charged 'over Iraq memo leak'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4447100.stm
Two men have been charged under the Official Secrets Act following the leak of a secret government memo.
The document involved - the Foreign Office's Iraq in the Medium Term - referred to "heavy-handed" US tactics, a government source told the BBC.
Its contents were reported in the Sunday Times in May last year.
Ex-civil servant David Keogh and former MP's researcher Leo O'Connor, both from Northampton, will appear before Bow Street magistrates on 29 November.
Political researcher
Mr Keogh, 49, is a former Cabinet Office communications worker.
Mr O'Connor, 42, worked as a researcher for Tony Clarke, the former MP for Northampton South.
The pair received police bail.
Mr Keogh was charged with an offence under section three of the Official Secrets Act, Mr O'Connor under section five.
Couldn't happen to a better guy! Rummy receives protests...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1509994.htm
An easy action to do:
WE'RE ON A ROLL. NOW WE STAND UP AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT
Today's vote in the House, resoundingly rejecting the administration's cruel budget cuts for the poor to finance more tax cuts for the rich, was no surprise to the more than 6,000 participants of our system who submitted their personal objections to their members of Congress. And now there are also more voices in the Senate demanding that we pull in the reins on the out of control fascist aspects of propaganda named Patriot Act. The administration's FBI plants are actually fighting for language to authorize "UNNECESSARY" intrusive searches.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/patriot.htm
Republicans Craig, Sununu and Murkowski, and Democrats Durbin, Feingold and Salazar are to be credited for being outraged that even the very modest restraints against abuse of government power in the bill were cut out by the conference committee. We need to send them our messages of support on this, and tell the rest of our senators who are not on board to start fighting for we the people for a change.
They even want to deny that Bush said that the IWR was not a vote for war.
Chuck in Doha
Posted by: chuck at November 17, 2005 01:32 PM
Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN tonight gave a short statement about a premise (sounds like a new talking point from the right) that all Senators were given access to a multi-page report on WMD's in Iraq before the IWR vote. Said the information was on computer, and each Senator had access go in and review the entire report. Said not many actually went in and reviewed the information before the vote, and they supposedly have tracked who logged in to review it and who didn't. I am watching for a transcript, then will post.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 17, 2005 10:55 PM
Hmmm...they tracked the Senators?
Sounds like they aren't even safe from the Patriot Act.
But, I was told when I investigated the election fraud that both party's had access through communications to educate themselves about it and that the Republican majority were not utilizing this service.
Is it a talking point? I would hope that each Senator did read every sentence, every word, and every letter of those communications. But if they followed the Republican's dismissal of election fraud and supression then they owe America an apology or something.
Truth:
First off, the premise that the Senate has the same information as the Executive Branch is simply on the face of it ludicrous. That's like saying an auditor looking at a company's 10K knows as much or more about the business and any shenanigins that might be afoot in the company than the CEO, CFO or COO. That dog don't hunt.
Second, what was known in October, 2002, and in March, 2003, are two entirely different things. In fact, the great increase in knowledge about the threat posed by Iraq was due to the return to work of the UN inspectors, which evntuality was indeed, to a large extent, facilitated by the fact that the IWR passed in a semi-bipartisan way. The executive decision to commit our troops happened in March, 2003.
Also, I tend to disagree that the US could have effectively administered Iraq but simply lacked the will, for whatever motivation. There is more to governing a fragmented, traditional, violent, and potentially fabulously wealthy piece of real estate than having the best machine guns and the proven abilitiy to build infrastructure.
Truth, I am very glad you are on our side.
Chuck in Doha
PS: I gotta get back to work!
Oops -- that wasn't too clear - I meant to suggest that the huge increase in knowledge about the threat posed by Iraq between the passage of the IWR and our invasion argued ever more clearly that Iraq posed no threat to the US, thereby undermining completely any argument that the IWR committed us to war way back in October.
Chuck in Doha
UK-- Downing St Memo:
Two charged 'over Iraq memo leak'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4447100.stm
Two men have been charged under the Official Secrets Act following the leak of a secret government memo.
The document involved - the Foreign Office's Iraq in the Medium Term - referred to "heavy-handed" US tactics, a government source told the BBC.
Its contents were reported in the Sunday Times in May last year
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
In one way this is good - it brings yet more attention to the Downing Street Memo WHICH MOST AMERICANS HAVE NOT READ YET!!!
Ralpheh:
I tend to agree with your "glass-half-full" take on these developments. I say, their inner compass of blind hubris is pointing them right where we want them to go. Kind of makes you want to say: "Bring it on!"
Chuck in Doha and now I really have to get back to work (it's the weekend here so I can post on occasion anyway).
Sparrow
There is one Senator who will not promote or sign into law any bill that he has not read in its entirety, for the protection of his constituents and that Senator has more integrity than most of the whole Senate. That Senator is one of my heroes, and it's Senator Robert Byrd.
Truth - Good question
Chuck - Good answer
I am enjoing this very much. Who is still up?
I'm going to San Diego for a few days. Any DCPers in San Diego area? I just talked to an old friend & it's her friends who run this website: http://www.watchingamerican.com
Here is an example - it's interesting.
http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000056.html
Lots of fun in Congress today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700931_pf.html
Budget votes included personal attacks, including one where one Dem. Senator called the Rep. Senator "A Howdy Doody-looking nimrod".
Said not many actually went in and reviewed the information before the vote, and they supposedly have tracked who logged in to review it and who didn't. I am watching for a transcript, then will post.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 17, 2005 10:55 PM
Okay, found the transcript. Correction: Change access to the national intelligence estimate from on a computer (I assumed it was available on computer, sorry) to access to the national intelligence estimate was available at a "reading room". Members could sign in at a reading room and access it. It was 92 pages, but the Washington Post reported that "no more than six senators and a handful of House members took time to read beyond the five page executive summary."
We would do well to find out if reading all 92 pages would have made any difference. Would it have shown that the facts presented were compromised and fabricated?
Here's part of the transcript, followed by the link:
COOPER: Well, some Democrats are saying the pre-war intelligence was cooked by the White House. The administration is saying the Democrats had the exact same intelligence the White House did. But is that really true?
We asked CNN national correspondent David Ensor to look back and separate facts from fictions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president and his aides have counterattacked against critics with two major arguments -- the key one: Congress and the administration had access to the same intelligence.
BUSH: And members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.
ENSOR: In a general sense, that is true. U.S. intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and said so in a national intelligence estimate Congress had access to before the war.
But it is not accurate to say Congress and the administration looked at all the same intelligence. The White House had access to far more than lawmakers did. Presidential daily briefs on intelligence are never given to Congress. Some intelligence available to the White House but not to Congress gave reason to doubt some of the president's blunt pre-war assertions, for example, that Iraq had helped al Qaeda on weapons.
BUSH: We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, in poisons, and deadly gases.
ENSOR: The president said that in October 2002. Yet, eight months earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of the captured al Qaeda operative who was the source of that assertion in a document delivered to the White House. It was recently declassified at the insistence of Democratic Senator Carl Levin.
Speaking of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA said -- quote -- "It is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."
Pentagon spokesmen called the release of the DIA document -- quote -- "irresponsible" and "out of context."
The next major argument from the White House, independent reviews have already determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence before the war.
STEPHEN L. HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: They were looked at by the Silberman-Robb commission. They were looked at by the Senate Intelligence community -- Committee. Both of them concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence.
ENSOR: But, in fact, no commission or committee has yet spoken on whether the White House misrepresented pre-war intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under pressure from Democrats, is working on it. The orders to the Silberman Commission from the White House specifically left it out.
LAURENCE SILBERMAN, FORMER CHAIRMAN, IRAQ WMD COMMISSION: Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policy-makers. And all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.
ENSOR (on camera): There is, however, plenty of blame to go around. Congress may have voted on Iraq without doing its homework. Members could read the 92-page national intelligence estimate by signing in at a reading room to do so. "The Washington Post" reported that no more than six senators and a handful of House members took time to read beyond the five-page executive summary.
David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Funny, that.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/17/acd.01.html
Greetings from the Land of the Morning Calm...
The Republic of Korea's Defense Ministry has decided that it will cut back on its Iraqi contribution of 3,000 troops at the beginning of next year. It will be trimmed down to 2,000.
And it would've been trimmed down to zero if it weren't for the pro-Bush contingent at the Defense Ministry.