« FREE THE SHEEHAN 34! | Main | The Shifting Sands Of The Iraq War »
Why Iraq Has No Army
I have in hand the new Atlantic Monthly, with a long-awaited cover article by James Fallows. It has a long subtitle: Why Iraq Has No Army - we can't leave until the Iraqis have one, the Bush administration says - and they're not even close - so now what. Fallows also was interviewed on "Fresh Air" on Nov. 16, 2005.
This article comes at a time when we need to know more what is going on in Iraq. It comes a time when Bush has been bolstering his case for going into Iraq and once again, questioning the patriotism of those who dissent and even implying they play into the hands of the enemy. It also comes at a time when Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say that he is not honest and disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism. A majority of Senators are asking this administration for quarterly reports, new evidence of torture in Iraq has emerged, and this week has seen unusually high casualties.
Given this framework, I read the article, then listened to the NPR special.
According to Fallows' reconstruction, the Iraqi people gained freedom from Saddam when Saddam fell, but what they didn't get was security. The need to improve security and order in Iraq puts the US in a tough position. We can't leave and we can't stay. The solution is theoretically to train up an Iraqi security force. The Bush administration seems to believe this can be done, but so far we have overstretched our military, strained our budget, and encountered resistance in the world and in our own country as casualties mount. Bush continues to say, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Early on, American officials acted as if an Iraqi force would emerge as a natural process. Two years ago, Rumsfeld predicted that soon Iraqi forces would outnumber coalition forces. It didn't happen. One battalion has reached a level of readiness, and that is out of 115.
James Fallows spent several months asking a large number of people why Iraq still essentially had no army. He spoke with Americans, Iraqis, Brits, Israelis, French and others who had served in the military, in Iraq, in Vietnam and elsewhere. What he heard was something like this: the US has improved its training procedures but the insurgency has gotten worse in the meantime. Many he interviewed preferred to remain anonymous.
One comment: "The Iraqi Security forces are almost like a black hole. You put a lot in and a little comes out."
Another comment, emailed from Bagdad: "I have to tell you that corruption is eating the guts of this counter-insurgency effort."
Allegedly, money to be used to train troops is leaking out to terrorists. A continuing insurgency is likely to lead to civil war. A "Sunni-stan" could then emerge which is more hostile to the US than Saddam Hussein ever thought of being. It could also end up to be a terrorist haven.
The article then breaks out like a three-act play of desperation. Act one involves neglect and delusion. Act two involves a tentative approach to a worsening challenge. Act three brings too little too late.
When Saddam fell, Iraq was a highly militarized society. Saddam had employed at least a half a million soldiers and policemen to keep the lid on Iraq. The US went in with about 1/3 that number of troops, very few of whom spoke Arabic. Some interviewed by Fallows believe that Saddam knew that when his Army melted away, they would re-emerge as a guerilla force. What he hears from most in the military is that the war planners, military and civilian, dismissed the Iraqi army without giving much thought to security. Very little thought was put into the matter of transition and stopping their pay certainly alienated them.
It wasn't until early 2004 that the administration started thinking about training Iraqi troops up. It's little wonder they found it difficult to do.
From the article:
"Having eliminated the existing security force, and having arrived with fewer troops than past experience in the Balkans, Germany and Japan would suggest for so large a territory, American officials essentially wasted the next six months." By then the insurgency in Iraq had magnified.
No one was really interested in training Iraqi security forces so we could get out of Iraq. "Once Bagdad was taken, Tommy Franks checked out..he seemed to be mainly thinking about his book," Fallows was told by a military writer. "All indications from the home front were that training Iraqis had becoming a boring issue. Donald Rumsfeld, according to thsoe around him, was bored by Iraq in general and this tedious process in particular."
President Bush placed no real emphasis on training Iraqis in his speeches. Opponents of the war rarely talked much about it. American trainers wondered how many skills they were training would eventually be used against them. No one seemed to know much about counterinsurgency. AWOL rates were very high.
Generals have come and gone. Appointments have been made. Advisors were embedded with Iraqi units. Things improved slowly, by the time of the Iraqi elections. Yet as the training program has improved and emphasis on it has finally increased, the situation in Iraq has worsened. Yet "from the president on down there is no urgency at all." No real exit plan has been proposed. Bush and Cheney make dutiful but vague speeches. Rumsfeld takes a distant tone and Rice and Wolfowitz have moved on to different things.
Fallows points out that training an Iraqi military matters, yet members of the administration have flipped from emphasizing catching Bin Laden to changing Social Security to saving Terri Schiavo to copying with Hurricane Katrina.
"The people who were intent on the war have lost interest in the only way out."
The final section is How to Leave With Honor. I have recently heard John Kerry say the solution must be political, not military. Fallows conclusion seems to be that "America's hopes today for an orderly exit from iraq depend completely on the emergence of a viable Iraqi security force. All current indications suggest that no such viable Iraqi security force is about to emerge."
He concludes that we need to stop the Rumsfeld-type stopgaps and actually make majors and colonels sit through language classes. There may be weapons systems we cannot afford if we are ever to get out of Iraq. We may have two unpleasant choices - stay in Iraq long enough to bring an Iraqi army to maturity, prepare to leave Iraq in a less than orderly way.
--It's not an uplifting article, but one that I thought would stimulate analysis rather than sound-bite solutions like stay-the-course or get-out-now.
From previous thread:
Posted by: monkey at November 17, 2005 08:38 AM
YES!!!!!!!! :-)
Posted by DiAnne Grieser at November 17, 2005 08:55 AM
IMHO... We cannot leave Iraq "with honor" for the simple reason Bu$hCo did not invade "with honor" or for any good reason than maniacal greed for power. There is nothing whatsoever "honorable" about the invasion or the occupation, and certainly the torture is so horrifying to normal mortals with a conscience that no one who has any sense of decency and ethics and morality can condone it, nor support the administration who disobeyed world treaties and illegally, unethically, and immorally ordered the invasion of Iraq based on LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES.
I just wish the Dem politicians would, for once, stop being polite and stop saying we were "misled" into the Iraq war. Bu$hCo invaded based on LIES.... we need some plain-speaking politicians in this nation!
Also, I do not for one second imagine that Bu$hCo is in any rush to train the Iraqi military or the Iraqi police. Keeping them untrained is his excuse for keeping our military in Iraq.....
Stay tuned today as JK and McCain will be on HARDBALL@MSNBC. I hope it will be just that and JK sets the record straight. I trust he will. McCain seems to be getting ALL the attention these days and for sure he's running in 08'!
...for sure he's running in 08'!
Posted by: Patti Ferschke at November 17, 2005 09:20 AM
And I hope like hell he does, SOOOO much to pick apart. I used to have enormous respect for John McCain, but as with everything else GWB comes in contact with, that too has turned to crap.
The Minus Touch
Posted by: monkey at November 17, 2005 09:27 AM
If McCain runs he's given the opposition a lot of information to put forth against him.
He won't grab very many Kerry voters...particularly not when they see his support for GWB, his support for Blackwell, and his support of incompetency in Iraq.
I also think it's a message that will resonate with Indys.
And his siding with GWB during last years elections, AFTER they smeared his wife and child, would make many people chose to not support him for that alone!
He lost the touch all right!
A most interesting oped in the San Francisco Chronicle via dailykos poster soyinkafan discussing why any and all involved in the "torture is legal" fiasco had best beware of traveling outside the US for the rest of their lives...
Read the entire SFgate editorial here...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/13/INGUPFLGKJ1.DTL&type=printable
Soyinkafan's entertaining commentary is here...
http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/11/14/23160/714/displaystory//
CSPAN 2
Senate debates Republican "Debt reconciliation pkg".
RealPlayer link:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=cspan/g2cspan/live/cspan2-g2.rm&proto=rtsp
Senator Kent Conrad (ND) points out that any entity besides this Admin that took 2.5 trillion of retirement over 5 yrs toward operating costs would be headed for a federal institution, but not the Senate or White House-- loose paraphrase
Pointed out only one member of the press is present in the gallery. MSM only interested in scandal-- not seeing that the bill being debated is itself scandalous...
NonnyO
I agree there isn't really a way to "leave with honor" - that's an abstract concept, like "virginity" - ideologues love it.
I wouldn't discount McCain. Voters tend to have very short memories, and I have written before about the "last click" mentality that permeates so many of us in our busy lives. It's the most recent image that counts. Recent images can be replaced with more recent images, which means these politicians have to time their image-releasing carefully. Watch McCain's images become more positive--and watch his positives climb and his negatives drop.
The good part is that Dems can do that too.
Add to the mix (re complications in Iraq, at a time when even Bush predicts further casualities and we all must "sacrifice" - how can this not push toward civil war between Sunnis & Shiites?
Iraqi says he was held with hundreds in secret jail
BBC News, UK
Iraq minister rejects torture claims
Aljazeera.net, Qatar
Sunnis want UN action over claims of torture
The Age, Australia
Iraq plays down claims of abuse
BBC News, UK
Iraqi minister plays down torture bunker charges
Reuters AlertNet, UK
Iraqi minister: Torture allegations exaggerated
Ireland Online, Ireland
Iraq official dismisses torture 'rumors'
CNN
Iraqi Minister: Torture Claims Exaggerated
Guardian Unlimited, UK
Sunni Arabs, alleged victim cite Shi'ite-led torture center
Boston Globe
Sunni leaders demand probe of torture jail
San Jose Mercury
Iraq deputy interior minister wants unified command over detention ...
CBC News, Canada
US pushing for quick resolution to Iraqi torture case
Monsters and Critics.com, UK
Sunni's demand probe into Iraq's secret jails
Mail & Guardian Online, South Africa detained and
Iraqi Rift Grows After Discovery of Prison
New York Times, United States
Editorial: Deeply Disturbing
Arab News, Saudi Arabia
International outcry greets allegations of police abuse
Guardian Unlimited, UK
Sunnis demand UN inquiry into Iraq ministry's torture chamber
Independent, UK
Iraq prisoner abuse scandal widens
Japan Today, Japan
An interesting analysis / insider look at what happened during the recent Israeli / Palestinian talks on the future of Gaza.
Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly blog points out the analysis by Nadezhda at Liberals against Terrorism:
PROGRESS IN GAZA....Condoleezza Rice has successfully concluded a deal between Israel and the Palestinian government that gives Gaza better access to the outside world:
"The deal sets out the terms of operation for Gaza border crossings used to move cargo and people, resolving a deadlock that has frustrated a team of international negotiators for weeks. It also establishes a system of bus convoys to shuttle Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank, the two territorial components of what is envisioned as a future Palestinian state."
"The agreement allows the Palestinians to begin work on Gaza's seaport, and assures donors that Israel will not interfere with its operation....The deal says discussions on renovating and reopening Gaza's international airport will continue."
As NSC director Rice was a disaster, but as Secretary of State she's been surprisingly effective. Credit where it's due. Over at Liberals Against Terrorism, Nadezhda provides some of the backstory, including props for James Wolfensohn, who negotiated the deal in the first place. As she says, "This demonstrates the benefits of actually working the issues multilaterally rather than use the Quartet as either a fig leaf for US positions or an excuse not to act."
Here's the link to Nadezhda's longer and insightful analysis:
http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=node/1899
Sen Craig Thomas (WY) saying that oil profits are moderate-- The media created the illusion of excessive profits in oil & gas... :p
Propaganda for Domestic Consumption:
(If you read off the wires, you can see these are about 3 articles, given different titles by Editors with different leanings)
Cheney slams critics
Bush calls war critics irresponsible
Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims
Cheney: War critics are 'opportunists'
Bush and Cheney hit back at Iraq critics
Cheney rips Democrats for 'dishonest' charges
Bush and Cheney hit back at Democrats over Iraq
Cheney lashes out at Dems over Iraq
Cheney: Iraq critics ‘dishonest,’ ‘reprehensible’
Cheney Scolds War Critics as 'Dishonest'
Cheney lambasts Iraq critics
Cheney calls war critics 'dishonest, reprehensible'
Cheney accuses Democrats on intelligence
Cheney Calls Senate War Critics Politically Ambitious Hypocrites
Cheney raps Democrats on war charges
Cheney attacks 'cynical' war critics
Veterans deserved better
Cheney Slams Democrats On Iraq
Cheney accuses Democrats on intelligence
Cheney Joins GOP Criticism of Democrats
Cheney Criticizes Democrats for Questioning Rationale for Iraq War
Countering & foreign takes:
Excerpts: Cheney on Iraq critics
BBC News (somewhat more objective)
Bush Tries to Deceive Us About Deceiving Us: Margaret Carlson
President Bush excels at creating fiction
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Ignoring the Facts
Washington Post
By Richard Cohen. In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush ...
Bush can't handle the truth
New York Daily News, NY
Bush's Betrayal of History
Salon
Iraqi war debate gets nasty
South Africa
Former US President calls Iraq war “Big Mistake”
Aljazeera.com
The former US President Bill Clinton blasted President George W. Bush over Iraq war, calling it a "big mistake". Speaking to students ...
Center for American Progress has a bit to say about Cheney's propaganda attempt.
INTELLIGENCE
Cheney's 'Dishonest and Reprehensible' Charges
Last night, Vice President Dick Cheney said that "the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
Let's be clear: President Bush and many members of his administration misled the American people on pre-war intelligence. It was either purposeful or the result of gross negligence. These claims were repeatedly advanced to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Blaming the people who point it out is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired by Vice President Cheney.
White House senior advisor Dan Bartlett added that the administration's critics have "crossed a bright line" by claiming that the Bush administration misled Americans into war because "they have no facts on their side." Actually, there are mountains of facts to support the claim. Here's a selection of grossly misleading claims made before the war by Cheney himself:
CHENEY SAID IT WAS AN 'ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY' IRAQ WAS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS:
On September 8, 2002, Cheney said, "[I]t is now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of [aluminum] tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.
... We do know, with absolute certainty, that [Saddam Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." Cheney "was referring to the aluminum tubes." At the time, "[t]he Department of Energy, the Nation’s foremost nuclear weapons experts, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, did not believe the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges to make nuclear weapons." After the invasion, months of inspections "found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program."
CHENEY SAID IT WAS 'PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED' THAT IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS MET WITH A 9/11 HIJACKER: On December 9, 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed, that [one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." The CIA has stated publicly that it didn't have "any credible information" that the meeting took place. The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission concluded the meeting did not occur. Even after the 9/11 Commission issued their findings, Cheney refused to back away from his statements. In June 2004, he stated that "we just don't know" whether the meeting took place.
CHENEY SAID THAT IRAQ TRAINED AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS: On December 2, 2002, Vice President Cheney claimed that Saddam Huissen's regime "has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." It wasn't true and the administration knew it. According to the New York Times the information came from a detainee "identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons." A February 2002 document by the Defense Intelligence Agency said that the detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, ''was intentionally misleading the debriefers.''
Propaganda Offensive Royale:
Malaysia Star
Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims
FOX News
President Bush carried his battle over the build-up to the war in Iraq across the Pacific Thursday, blasting Democrats once again for claiming the White House distorted pre-war intelligence.
Meanwhile (recently):
6-Nov-2005 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
15-Nov-2005 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karmah (near) [nr. Fallujah] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ubaydi [nr. Syrian border] - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
Since people don't pay much attention to history (and suffer because of it), they should also notice that the war is going on and BUSH IS IN OFFICE.
Posted by: DiAnne at November 17, 2005 11:10 AM
Yup...! :-)
Attacking another nation for the sake of controlling the oil wells there (or any other dippy reason) is just not an "honorable" thing to do. The outcome can only bring dishonor to the attacking nation, and death to the soldiers fighting, as well as to the innocent citizens fo the nation invaded. The soldiers, however much one respects them and supports them otherwise, are NOT in Iraq fighting for or protecting *our freedom,* after all.... They're there as cannon fodder for Bu$hCo to kill and be killed so the Cretin can become what he envisioned of himself before 2000: a "war president"! Grrrr.... Egomaniacal psychopathic little dictator....
Looks like Rove has Cheney fighting like hell!
And, how is that fight being met?
The fact that they are on the defensive is great.
Sounds like we have them on the ropes.
I HOPE every single time he opens his mouth with defensive/offensive rhetoric, that Kerry, Kennedy, Conrad, Conyers, Edwards, et al talk his talking points into the ground, turn the tables on him, and make it all the more obvious that they are immoral corrupt thugs.
We'll see how fast he shuts his mouth then. It's a golden opportunity.
I so hope our spokesmen can frame their rhetoric so that it reveals the truth, stays on the offensive, and unravels that last bit of shroud covering this death machine.
No doubt Cheney has no idea how sinister he looks spewing forth his ugliness and hatefulness like green bile upon a nation that has just about had enough.
It's too late, Karl. The people are already beginning to SEE.
Don't give up, valiant warriors. The truth ALWAYS rises to the top and wins.
Get it out there. LOUDLY and in unison.
You know darn well that if the shoe was on the other foot, Rove would have had the perps buried by now.
Truth Shall Prevail
I always use the American Progress Report for reframing. Today it came out just as the Cheney articles all hit.
Here you should be able to sign up for them to email you and the stuff they come up with all has links (what I excerpted from there doesn't).
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.8473/
It's very useful.
Most of the world isn't fooled, & it's China that pulls the strings for our economy & loans us money to buy their wholesale goods for us consumers to buy retail, to hold up our economy.
one plan for leaving Iraq:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17,0,4869497,print.story
Posted by: karen at November 17, 2005 11:20 AM
Re: McCain.
Thanks for the warning.
I like some others here, lost ALL respect for the man when he had his head planted firmly up this administration's nether region.
Before that, I, too, had great respect for him.
He gave up credibility when stumping for Bush in '04. Even SNL had a cartoon showing McCain in a trailer before a stump speech, banging his head on the cupboards repeatedly, then going out and, against his own conscience and sense of morality, endorsing the thugs.
I hope he is the best they have. We could and should pick his bones.
Nothing so sickening as to see a man give away his integrity for the promise of a seat at the table later.
When General Casey testified before Congress, he as much as admitted that the Iraq war cannot be won militarily
He testified once & 3 battalians were ready (Iraqi), then testified again & the number had dropped to 1 (of 115)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9531843/
Posted by: DiAnne at November 17, 2005 12:22 PM
Thanks, DiAnne.
I have bookmarked it.
For those who have fundy relatives who think like Pat Robertson...
WONDERFUL!! Bishop John Spong on Pat Robertson
by matthewc
Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:50:09 PM PDT
John Shelby Spong, retired Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is a renowned theological scholar and progressive thinker. He is the author of several books, including Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, and Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile (follow the link on his name for more).
Every week, Bishop Spong sends out an email in which he answers questions sent to him from all over. This week, the question came from a producer at Fox News. His answer is so unbelievably right on, I had to share it with everyone here.
Christina, a television producer at Fox News writes:
"How do you respond to the Rev. Pat Robertson when he warns the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, that God might strike them with a disaster since they voted out the School Board members who favored "Intelligent Design?"
Dear Christina,
Pat Robertson has said so many silly and ridiculous things that I wonder why anyone would pay much attention to him on any subject.
Read the rest here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/16/18509/384
I just took this action:
(It's from Senator Levin)
If you want to know how the Bush Administration exaggerated and distorted intelligence before the war in Iraq, then you need to stand with Senate Democrats today and demand the truth.
http://www.dscc.org/demandthetruth
As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have studied the statements and arguments made by the Bush Administration prior to going to war. Too many of those statements and arguments were exaggerated or were not supported by the assessments of the Intelligence Community at the time they were made.
For example, during their drive to war, representatives of the White House repeatedly claimed that Iraq provided Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, al Qaeda, with chemical and biological weapons training. But Bush Administration officials knew at the time that claim was based on information from an informant that the Defense Department's own intelligence agency had concluded was probably intentionally misleading us.
Bush Administration officials also said before the war that there was a confirmed report that the lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer met in Prague before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country. Vice President Cheney, for example, said that this meeting "was pretty well confirmed," but our own Central Intelligence Agency doubted the meeting ever occurred.
What other Administration statements and arguments for war exaggerated or distorted the intelligence? That's what Senate Democrats want to find out. Please stand with us on behalf of the American people as we demand the truth.
The Times had a front page article on a prison in Iraq - in the basement of the INterior Ministry. It said that the men being held were malnourished/starved and probably tortured.
Supposedly the U.S. and the Iraqi government are investigating. Bush hasn't anything about it of course....
They are obviously trying to discredit Dems by saying they voted for war.
How can the Dems get it out there loudly enough that they voted for war only as a LAST RESORT?
They are going to hammer this point over, and over, and over...........
I don't see it going away any time soon. It's their only hope for salvation.
We have to get a rhetoric together that rises above this, and is short and to the point.
This could be a SERIOUS stumbling block for our efforts at getting the truth out there.
Any ideas on how to frame our rebuttal?
There's something that feels absolutely CHILDISH about the whole WH propaganda machine these days.
As Josh says at TPM, the White House KNOWS its up against it. What they are trying to do is give whoever they have LEFT supporting them talking points to counter the growing "insurgency" of anti-war sentiment.
Bush's bully schoolyard challenge, Cheney's projection of everyone else's dishonesty but his own--as his own former staff members are falling on their swords under indictment with MORE indictments to come...this is the premise of "If I can scream loud enough and long enough to scare 'em, maybe they'll believe me.
But both of them have spent every last DIME of our cognitive dissonance credits.
When a child keeps repeating the same lie time and time again, you just want to take them to the woodshed.
In this case, all these guys need to do is ****ing answer the questions EVERYONE is asking, and answer them truthfully, so that SOME semblance of confidence and trust can be restored. And that, I'm afraid, they will never ever do.
Truth:
Here it is from TPM:
(November 17, 2005 -- 09:51 AM EST // link)
There's one point that's important to remember about the White House's pushback to cover up its collective dishonesty about Iraq. We've noted before that in scandals or political nominations the decisive issue is not the number of opponents, the intensity of their opposition or even the quality of their arguments. The decisive issue is most often whether the scandalee or the nominee has some committed base of support, even if it only amounts to a distinct minority.
A parallel dynamic is in play with respect to what the White House is trying to accomplish with this current pushback.
Virtually all of the arguments the White House is now advancing are transparently ridiculous on their face to anyone who has closely followed this evolving debate over the last three years.
But that doesn't matter. The White House doesn't need to win any debates. What they need is for their core supporters to have something to say. Anything. And to be able to say it loudly. The one thing that would be fatal for the White House from its defenders would be silence.
I don't say this as a counsel of pessimism or futility. It's just important to understand, to know what they're trying to achieve. The good news is that most Americans have already figured this out. Clear majorities of the public now believe this president misled them about Iraq. And they'll certainly grow. The key is to press these on the specifics, why they said these things they knew weren't true.
-- Josh Marshall
Fe
Well alot of it is out of their control. They have put extra personnel over in Iraq in preparation for trouble around the December elections. Bush has counselled us to expect more violence and casualties - we are supposed to "sacrifice."
Now we find out that even "progress" that was made in Iraq (training Iraqi troops) has backslid, that the insurgency has increased, so we are truly in a quagmire. Rumsfeld and Casey tried to "spin" it to Congress but it's impossible.
& the new torture allegations of the once underdog Shiites against the once ruling Sunnis are only frosting on the rotten cake. The Shiites are now denying, but it was partially American troops who discovered the alleged prison, with 4x the number than what was rumored! & since when are militias powerful enough to run their own prisons - welcome to "liberated" Iraq!
I have not heard Bush or Cheney say anything about it either and now the Iraqi government is denying or downplaying it. Where will they hide all the bodies, theirs or ours? It can't be done. Death is something anyone can identify with - it's universal.
Oh you can bet that on Sunday Bush will go to a Protestant church in China. He says they should be able to print more Bibles "and other sacred texts" (afterthought). Doesn't he realize that China is an ancient civilization pre-dating his own?
Jason Leopold | Democrats Have Proof Pre-War Intel Was Manipulated
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705I.shtml
Senate Democrats have dug up additional explosive evidence over the past week that they say will help prove the Bush administration deliberately manipulated pre-war Iraq intelligence that was used to convince Congress and the public to support a pre-emptive strike against the Middle East country in March of 2003.
Robert Scheer | The Big Lie Technique
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705L.shtml
Robert Scheer writes that the false al Qaeda-Hussein link was the linchpin to Bush's argument that he could not delay the invasion until after the United Nations weapons inspectors completed their investigation in a matter of months. Perhaps he feared not that those weapons would fall into the wrong hands, but that they would not be found at all.
Iraqi Guards Seen as Death Squads
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705M.shtml
Among the varied armed security men on Baghdad's streets these days, you can't miss the police commandos.... The commandos are part of the Iraqi security forces that the Bush administration says will gradually replace American troops in this war. But the commandos are being blamed for a wave of kidnappings and executions around Baghdad since the spring.
On War, Senate Flexes Muscle
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705N.shtml
Democrats called Tuesday's resolution a symbolic vote of "no confidence" in Mr. Bush.
Sidney Blumenthal | Bush's Betrayal of History
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705O.shtml
Sidney Blumenthal writes that the turn in public opinion against Bush has been slowly considered and is therefore also firm. Now a majority believes his administration manipulated pre-war intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war, and nearly two-thirds disapprove of how he has handled the war. His political capital appears spent with more than three years left in his term.
6 Soldiers Die, Cindy Sheehan Pleads Not Guilty
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111705Z.shtml
Five US Marines were killed in fighting with al Qaeda-led insurgents near the Syrian border, and an Army soldier died of wounds suffered in Baghdad. At least 2,077 US service members have now been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war in March of 2003. And in Washington, war protester Cindy Sheehan and several others pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to charges of demonstrating without a permit outside the White House.
Truth:
The Senate did not vote for war. The Senate authorized POTUS to use force as a last resort. The IWR worked -- the inspectors were in and working and working effectively. POTUS abused the authority granted and took over Iraq anyway. Again -- the Senate did not vote for war. POTUS lied, and continues to lie, to justify that gross abuse of authority. POTUS wants to re-write history, including the words of the President of the US at that time Matthew has the link. In October, 2002, Bush said the IWR made war less likey. Bush can't rewrite history that fast.
Chuck in Doha
PS to Fe: "We can be heros, just for one day..." (David Bowie song). I loved your post a bit back!
There can be no Iraq army until there is a stable political authority in Iraq. Until that time, the factions and clans vying for the prize in Iraq will be the factions and clans inside the "army" fighting the same battle. That seems so obvious to me I cannot understand 80% of the stupidities emanating from Washington. It's not about the training, it's about political control. We ain't gonna "educate" the Iraqi army into good governance in the absence of governance. I just ain't gonna happen.
Chuck in Doha
PS to Fe: "We can be heros, just for one day..." (David Bowie song). I loved your post a bit back!
Posted by: chuck at November 17, 2005 01:24 PM
Chuck:
Thanks. Its simultaneously amusing and appalling that we're living long enough to see people we once called "heroes" turned into goats like Woodward.
I often marveled at what my mother, who lived to 83, thought about everything, every cycle, every person she saw in her history change in their stature--did they grow or diminish?
Perhaps we are growing, maturing as individuals and as a society as we react to history--while its being made. And we have the added blessing of EACH OTHER to talk to now about the world, and how the world affects us personally.
Glad I checked in a saw your post right away. We've missed each other on previous threads and I've often regretted that. But here we are at last.
Fe in Berkeley
A full-blown inquiry into the use of US intelligence by the Executive Branch in order to abuse the IWR authority is required in order to make sure Bush and Cheney don't get to re-write history. Bush and Cheney want to re-write history. They even want to deny that Bush said that the IWR was not a vote for war.
Chuck in Doha
Chuck
My favorite argument is that Bush's father started the war, for the wrong reason, and bungled it. From then on it has been a mess, from leaving military for ages in Saudi Arabia, to killing of countless children via sanctions, to the flyover bombings to the inconsistent weapons inspections. Clinton and the Democrats were part of the interim process, but Bush I started the whole mess & Bush II "tried to finish what his father started," as I was told both by a shopkeeper in Istanbul & by a man in his 90s in North Dakota.
The Democrats did not rewrite military policy to allow pre-emptive war. The Democrats did not rush to war before UN & Senate processes had been exhausted, they did not ignore diplomacy and hurl insults, & then certainly did not disregard world-respected Nobel peace prize winning weapons inspectors. Only Bush did that.
They are using the same playbook they used on Kerry's war position, and we KNOW that they didnt get more than 50% of the population to buy that line of crap.
With approval ratings in the 30's, this latest "campaign" of theirs ain't going anywhere.
Demons, be gone!
So.... WHEN will Halliburton and their subsidiary company executives and employees be brought to justice?!?!?!? And, if not, WHY not?!?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/middleeast/17reconstruct.html
November 17, 2005
American Faces Charge of Graft for Work in Iraq
DiAnne:
And in doing so recklessly imperilled our national security, and now they are tryng to brazen their way out by attempting to re-write history. I think maybe theyve gone to that well once too often
Fe:
Doing contracts here in Doha! You're contracts right?
Chuck in Doha
Chuck:
Doing contracts in SF for the schools.
An excellent break-down on just who has control in the Republican party and what's about to happen...
The War against Right-wing Theocrats finally begins for real
by GlennGreenwald
Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 04:41:27 AM PDT
his concluding line: "How long can the GOP manage to keep these scotch-taped coalitions together? Not much longer -- at all -- from the looks of it. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/17/64127/639
Also check these comments on the diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/17/64127/639/8#8
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/11/17/64127/639/45#45
Chuck:
This is one of the nicest contract admin jobs I've had--its all for a good thing.
Fe:
On the hero thing, I agree 100%. I mean, I don't know any of these people from personal experience, so I don't look for anyone to bail us out. We need effective orgaizers, leaders, spokes-people, analysts (and contract administrators!), but none of them can exist much less do anything unless plain old folks like us do the legwork. If people get savvy enough, and if they can be heros, the leaders will follow!
That's my philosophy, anyway.
Chuck in Doha
How can they recover their poll ratings just because it's Christmas?
First the Pentagon admits it used white phosphorus in Fallujah. If they attacked a civilian city, they had to have used it on civilians. We will have many returning witnesses who are not high up in the military.
Then 8 GIs were killed within 24 hours then near Syria & 3 GIs were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad right after.
Then the scandal of the tortured Iraqi prisoners grew legs as an international investigation was demanded and Al-Sistani got involved. What I thought was a militia turns out to be under the Ministry of the Interior! Aren't the US working to develop this government? Isn't that what we're paying for? Reconstruction & training them to go it alone and get on with being "liberated"?
It's illegal anywhere to hang someone from the ceiling blindfolded. It's universally unplesant to go try to find out if one of the prisoners is your relative. It's troubling when relatives simply disappear. This is Abu Graib but under those we tutored. This is a big revenge fest against Saddam's party & we have aided the religious fanatic side similar to that which now controls Iran. Many Iraqis believe the special police of the Ministry of the Interior are America-backed death squads.
We taxpayers pay 2 billion a month for this. Our President and Vice President hail it as "progress" and criticize anyone who doesn't go along with it. They have also been largely uninterested in the mechanics of what is actually going on in Iraq, as long as funds get funneled to Halliburton & friends.
& there have been new contracting scandals (speak of the devil). Bribes and kickbacks - up to $200,000/month by one businessman named Bloom, to get and keep contracts!
As Juan Cole says, "The imperial presidency has reached the point where the White House can just informally and by fiat create the government of another country, for all the world like George III. That other George, Washington, is spinning in his grave. The offer of a crown was harder for yet another George, more like the III than the first, to resist."
Cheney attacks Democrats. As Juan Cole writes, "Cheney is increasingly confused. Dick, when the opposing party criticizes the sitting government, that is a sign of backbone. When they went along with your fantasies about a torrid three-way between Bin Laden, Saddam and Zarqawi on top of an Iraqi nuke in an underground bunker, that was when they were choosing the better part of valor.
LOL
There can be no Iraq army until there is a stable political authority in Iraq.
Posted by: chuck at November 17, 2005 01:28 PM
Chuck, any ideas on how we get there from here?
Fe:
Great for you! I actually enjoy contracts. I think there is a lot of craft, even art, in it. Maybe that's why I don't believe in the "Leader" principle. I'll take a well-drafted contract with transparent legal persons supported by a legislative and judicial and commercial set of institutions any day over some TV personality cult.
Chuck in Doha
PS: That wasn't supposed to sound cynical....
Posted by: chuck at November 17, 2005 01:50 PM
One of the wisest things ever said to me was by my old boss. She was French from an old established French family line of cultural attaches and bureau heads. Her father was a socialist (notice small "s").
She was head of the community arts program at the time we worked together, and there was LOTS of neighborhood activism in the 70s and 80s in SF. Oftentimes, some artists would come to the group meetings at our cultural centers with guns and knives!!!
I asked her how did she manage under these circumstances to create community arts when things were oftentimes polemicized, distrust of government rampant, and the need for change obvious. All the players were abit "on the edge", but they were all working for a good cause.
She said: "My father always said--it takes all types to make a revolution."
So here's to the bread bakers, the cheese sellers, the nurses, the mothers, the doctors and THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORS: we are the revolution.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C11%5C15%5Cstory_15-11-2005_pg4_3
Robert Fisk Critizes the Rise of Patriot Journalism
interesting
I'll take a well-drafted contract with transparent legal persons supported by a legislative and judicial and commercial set of institutions any day over some TV personality cult.
Chuck in Doha
Chuck:
Once a good contract is in place, you have a template going for putting it up and managing it. After that, new and subsequent contracts hit or initiation, processing and execution-- a "rhythm" that you and your company "sing along" with from there.
At least, from the five different public works programs I've been involved in--that's how it goes...as long as everyone trusts each other.
Truth:
No. We are in a big old mess. We might could stop digging deeper, though, as a first step. Then maybe apologize to some of our strongest allies, like Germany, France and Turkey, for humiliating them and spitting in there faces for giving us good advice. The key is to bring Syria and Iran and Turkey into the picture proactively, which will, in the case of Syria and Iran, require a new era of detente. Or we can go and invade them too, but I do not think that is right, nor wise, nor feasible. The point is, they actually understand how Iraq works. We, most demostrably, do not. Plus, they will continue to be spoilers in Iraq. Getting Russia, China and India involved would be a huge plus because they have a huge stake in the oil outcome, and, of course, dealing with the Israel-Palestine thing. That's my "spit-balling" take on it anyway.
Chuck in Doha
Fisk excerpt:
“The United States must leave Iraq and will leave Iraq but can’t,” said Fisk, who is currently touring the United States to launch the American edition of his new book, “The Great War for Civilisation”.
(snip)
“When the British army invaded Iraq in 1917, the commander of the army put up a proclamation outside the city. It read: ‘We come here not as conquerors but as liberators’,” said Fisk, referring to President Bush’s declarations that the United States wished to liberate Iraqis from the clutches of a ferocious dictator.
Fisk drew other parallels with history. “The British invasion led to an upswing of Iraqi insurgency. In order to control the insurgents, the British shelled the cities of Fallujah and Najaf. In 1920, the British declared that if they left, Iraq would be caught in the throes of a civil war.”
During a recent trip to Baghdad, Fisk asked an Iraqi if there would be civil war if the Americans left. The man was a Sunni Muslim and was attending his brother’s funeral when Fisk put this question to him. “Why do you westerners always want us to have civil war,” he said. “I am married to a Shia Muslim – do you want me to kill my wife?”
Fisk is extremely sceptical about most American claims. He doesn’t believe civil war will wreck Iraq if America pulled out, just like he chuckles at the American insistence that they invaded Iraq to liberate it. “ Did we invade Iraq for the oil? I think so. If the major export of Iraq had been asparagus instead of oil, I don’t think the 82nd Airborne Division would be there right now.”
According to British Petroleum, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. Michael Klare writing for the Inter-hemispheric Resource Center agrees with Fisk that oil was the main reason for invading Iraq. “Much of America’s oil comes from the Gulf. This dependency is (a weakness) for American power: Unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question.”
Update from karen on the Sheehan 34 trial...
All 34 defendants were convicted. Stephanie is planning to appeal. Charged with $50 fine and $25 processing fee, $75 total which she will not pay.
The defendents are on their way to lunch and to plan their next steps. Check back later for more on this story.
See these threads if you haven't read up on this:
FREE THE SHEEHAN 34! http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/11/free_the_sheeha.html
In the Spirit of Gandhi and MLK...
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/09/jail_birds_last_1.html
Fe:
Trust is fine but give me a decent choice of law and compenent arbitration any day! Then just trust the parties to act in their own best interests. I agree that trust is critical in the negotiations phase in the sense of "good faith." Luckily, I have never worked for an outfit that looks to snare some other party in a "gottcha" clause. By the way, that really is a big part of my mental model for politics as well, including issues like how in the world Iraq can get from where it is to reasonably stable and reasonably good governance.
Chuck in Doha
Dwazhon:
Thanks for reminding me -- I would consider looking to MLK, Lincoln and Ghandi as heros. I guess that's my exception that proves the rule!
Chuck in Doha
The day after the election, I saw a woman with a sign that said, "Mandate, My Ass" and she has been partially vindicated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1644142,00.html
Ludendorff, not Lincoln
Bush's White House is dismissive of history, yet increasingly desperate to rewrite it
One year ago, after his re-election, President Bush brashly asserted: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."
Twelve months later, Republicans were thrashed in elections for the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. In St Paul, Minnesota, the Democratic mayor who endorsed Bush for re-election a year ago was defeated by another Democrat by 70% to 30%.
Then the Republicans in the Congress split and failed to pass Bush's budget.
That was followed by the Senate's rejection of Bush's torture and detainee policy by a 98-to-0 vote and by the overwhelming passage of a resolution stipulating that the president must submit a strategy on the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
The turn against him in public opinion has been slowly considered and is therefore also firm.
A majority believe his administration manipulated prewar intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war, and two-thirds disapprove of his policy on the war. His political capital already appears spent, and he has retreated from the ruins of his grandiose agenda into a defence of his past.
In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, Bush was the man of action who never looked back, openly dismissive of history. "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
But his obsessive interest in the subject is not posthumous. The Senate's decision to launch an investigation into prewar disinformation has provoked a furious reaction.
On Veterans' Day (November 11), Bush addressed troops at an army base: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He accused "some Democrats and anti-war critics" of lying in stating that "we manipulated the intelligence".
Later, Bush spoke before troops at an air force base, where he stated that the Democrats "now rewriting the past" are "sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy". The soldiers "deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them". Unless "our will is strong", disunity will threaten "victory". While the "ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life" besieges us from without, the most insidious undermining comes from within.
Thus an American president has updated the "stab in the back" theory of General Erich Ludendorff, who stated in February 1919 that "the political leadership disarmed the unconquered army and delivered over Germany to the destructive will of the enemy".
The former Republican speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, always notable for his visions, has compared George Bush in his travails to Abraham Lincoln before Gettysburg. Gingrich, who has recently written a series of counterfactual novels depicting a southern triumph in the civil war, communicated his latest flight of fancy to a longtime former diplomat.
"We are at war," insisted Gingrich. "With whom?" he was asked. "The Democrats," he apparently replied without hesitation. For Gingrich, ever the Republican guru, history is a plaything of the partisan present.
Bush's adoption of the Ludendorff strategy of blaming weak politicians for military failure and exalting "will" sets him at odds with liberal democracy. His understanding of history also clashes with the conservative tradition that acknowledges human fallibility and respects the past.
Bush's presidency is an effort to defy history, not only in America, writing on the world as a blank slate. Now he wants to erase memory of his actual record, substituting a counterfactual history. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Lincoln. Never mind.
Honest Abe:
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time"
Or something like that. Man we need some more Republicans like Lincoln.
Chuck in Doha
Or another of my Lincoln favorites, which may be apocryphal, but something along the lines that "a smart person never finds themselves in a position where they have to lie."
Chuck in Doha
"Trust is fine but give me a decent choice of law and compenent arbitration any day! Then just trust the parties to act in their own best interests."
Chuck:
Fortunately CA Contracting law is pretty much the standard by which we rule, and its like a cookbook--more precisely a BAKING cookbook where accuracy in measurement and prcedure is EVERYTHING---timeliness and adherence to code in all proceedings is the MO.
"By the way, that really is a big part of my mental model for politics as well, including issues like how in the world Iraq can get from where it is to reasonably stable and reasonably good governance."
Unfortunately, the tides of people do not always neatly fit the rules of MY laws. They can't. We only have history to acknowledge the failures of strict adherence, and cookie-cutter policy doomed to failure.
In terms of Iraq, I defer to your expertise because of your knowledge of the region and the culture, which is a far far cry from what our current government has as resource.
By the way, in terms of "gotcha" clauses--pre-emptive is best (good clear specs, anticipating tricks of the "trades" and so on...)
Off Topic,
Personally, I hope they do keep trotting Cheney out there to snarl and spew venom.
Nothing like using a master of the dark side to try to convince the world you are light.
Grrrr.
DiAnne:
I like what you posted -- our dependence on oil from around here is a weakness, maybe THE weakness, in our real security. Flanging that up, however, will not happen in one year or even five. It will require a sustained effort to develop sustainable energy sources that can support the economy. There is no silver-bullet and we can't sit around waiting for one (variation on the hero theme!) We have to face facts, though, and recognize the sort of courage required in that Chinese proverb (I think): "A journey of a thousand miles (or whatever unit they use) starts with one step."
Chuck in Doha
What I want to know is WHY our senators and representatives have betrayed the American people who elected them by even passing the first Patriot Act... especially now that the legislators know what we knew all along: the Bu$h administration has repeatedly LIED, and LIED to cover the original LIES, and they have bullied every senator and representative who used to have common sense into voting against the best interests of the American people. Congress of Wimps and Piddling Puppies afraid of their own shadows who cower every time Bush barks.... Our legislators are compromising all of our rights away with this new Patriot Act compromise (pure crap - they should have let it all expire - better yet, why did legislators approve the original Patriot Act without even reading it?!?), and that makes those legislators either dangerous corporate fascists underneath their pleasant political facade while they compliment their constituents..., or it makes them outright stupid and greedy for accepting PAC monies to keep voting in favor of everything the Bu$hCo administration proposes, all against the best interests of the American people.
WHY have our senators and representatives given away so much of their legislative powers and consolidated it in the hands of what even ordinary people with a modicum of common sense know is an evil cabal in *our* White House, the likes of which this world hasn't seen since Hitler & WWII Germany?!? Certainly, the Bu$hCo administration is more power-hungry and corrupt than even Saddam Hussein was since they convinced our Congress of Wimps to approve the illegal, unjustified, unethical, and immoral invasion of Iraq, a country that had no connection whatsoever to 9/11 (etc.!), and the Congress of Wimps just went right along with whatever LIES they were spoon fed and didn't raise so much as a whimper of protest...! Shame on our legislators!!!
Worse yet, the proposed compromise for the current Patriot Act sounds like the the same kind of gobbledegook regarding the Medicare prescription plans that no one can figure out (that needs fixing and simplifying, too, and the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do not need to reap such a huge profit from the elderly and disabled in this country - if those companies want higher profits, they need to stop advertising and spend those advertising dollars on research and development!).... the Bu$hCo administration (and their evil cohorts in PNAC) can interpret the Patriot Act compromises just about any way they want and still come out of the muck smelling like roses, even though they are ethically challenged and lack all moral scruples and principles.
What's the current price of buying the conscience and ethical and moral standards of the average legislator nowadays???
Senators and representatives can say "The Iraq war was a mistake" from now until the cows come home, but so what?!? So effing what?!? That pabulum statement does not alter the fact that we've yet to hear any senator or representative say "I'M SO SORRY I voted in favor of giving Bu$h carte blanche, money, and war powers never given to him in the Constitution, which has now overthrown the checks and balances between the three branches of government given to us in the Constitution, and made this nation a virtual corporate fascist nation in all but name only, and put this nation into debt for many years to come because of tax cuts to the rich and to the corporations who outsource jobs overseas, and because of the costs of his war in Iraq. I'M SO SORRY I listened to the LIES we were told without questioning the Bu$h administration leading up to the illegal, unjustified, immoral, and unethical attack of Iraq that has resulted in so many needless deaths for no reason that makes any sense whatsoever. I APOLOGIZE to my constituents, and to the American people, for my egregious errors in judgement. I APOLOGIZE for letting Bu$hCo browbeat me into submission when they called my patriotism into question if I didn't support their stupid invasion of Iraq based on LIES after 9/11." I do NOT want to hear mealy-mouthed inadequate excuses and justifications for legislators' bad faith votes against the American people in Congress; I want to hear that they are SORRY for and APOLOGIZE for their irresponsible and unjustified decisions to vote in favor of anything Bu$hCo said or did without questioning the administration's LIES since the Selection of 2000. (The legislators who did not vote in favor of Bu$h (& PNAC's) war in Iraq do not need to apologize, but they are few and far between, and the rest of the senators and representatives owe this nation abject apologies for every bad vote in the House or the Senate that gave Bu$h (and PNAC) more power since the Selection of 2000.)
I knew Bu$h was LYING during the 2000 debates when he said he wouldn't be doing any 'nation building,' so I knew he'd invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war, if elected (the Selection was a total shock), and I knew the Bu$hCo administration was LYING about the intelligence they got from the CIA and other sources leading up to the attack on Iraq. WHY didn't the individual members of the US Congress know the same thing I did, just from watching the Bu$h's body language?!? I knew; It was all so patently OBVIOUS to me!!! WHY didn't the members of both the Senate and the House question the false justifications Bu$hCo used to attack Iraq?!? Instead our legislators rolled on their backs like submissive, scared puppies, wet themselves, and gave Bu$hCo every damned thing they demanded!!! Shame on the members of the US Congress!!!
Before the next election cycle rolls around, the citizens of this nation (indeed, the world) need to hear "I'M SORRY" and "I APOLOGIZE" coming from the mouths of our senators and representatives before anyone considers voting for them, including the Dems (DINOs, especially) who have given away so much of their legislative power and consolidated it in the hands of one psychopathic little cretin and his PNAC and corporate chums. That means legislators need to say "I'M SORRY" and "I APOLOGIZE" more than once and make sure the sound bytes are on many different TV news stories at different times and on different days so everyone who does not religiously watch the evening news hears the words of abject apology. (And they better mean it; we can tell if they're lying by their body language and tone of voice....) We need to hear "I'M SORRY I was such a gullible fool as to be taken in by the Bu$hCo administration." 'Confession is good for the soul...,' to quote an old polygraph operator. And then the entire US Congress needs to get busy and restore the checks and balances between the three branches of government, restore the Constitutional rights and privileges for all of us (that means restoring writs of habeas corpus, too!), and repeal all the crappy legislation and laws they've brought into being since the Selection of 2000, thanks to that little dictator Bu$h and his PNAC, greedy, oil-hungry, corporate-fascist chums....
Demanding an accounting of this administration now is too little, too late (no one will ever listen now - especially media who are part of the avian flu wag the dog in scare tactic stories), and has senselessly and needlessly cost too many innocent lives because no one in Congress screamed loud enough and long enough to get that madman in the White House stopped in 2001 right after 9/11, nor made the media listen to him/her (neoCon media has not, of course, helped the citizens of this nation learn the truth, so they have not helped one little bit by spinning misinformation and disinformation and other White House propaganda and LIES). The Bu$hCo administration is shrouded in secrecy (made legal by secret executive orders, no less, as well as bad-faith legislation with the Patriot Act our legislators approvedafter 9/11, among other things!) and Bu$hCo is shrouded in many webs of LIES, and they will NEVER give an honest accounting for their actions or admit they were wrong. NEVER, EVER! Deal with that fact!!! The Bu$hCo administration believes their own PR and their own LIES....
The below link is what brought on the above rant from me.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601047.html
Congress Arrives at A Deal on Patriot Act
Limits Would Spare Some Controversial Government Powers
Fe:
I guess I was think more of the negotiations that go into contracts as a model for looking at political change -- vested interests authorize parties to negotiate with other interest that may be in conflict with them, and a successful negotiation is to bring the perception of the parties of their best interest into enough harmony to formalize a win-win covenant, without coercion and without misrepresentation ("gotcha"). I've been working too much lately but I hope that made sense!
Chuck in Doha
November 17, 2005
Influential House Democrat Wants Immediate Iraq Withdrawal
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - An influential House Democrat called the Iraq campaign "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" today as he called for the immediate withdrawal of United States troops, intensifying an already bitter debate on Capitol Hill.
"It is time for a change in direction," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk."
Mr. Murtha, a conservative who voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq and who supported the Persian Gulf war in 1991, called for "the immediate redeployment of American forces."
"It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Mr. Murtha said during an emotional news conference on Capitol Hill. His remarks were quickly denounced by House Republicans as defeatist and wrongheaded.
Mr. Murtha, a 73-year-old Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam combat, lashed back at Vice President Dick Cheney, who in a speech to a conservative group on Wednesday night condemned critics of the Iraq war. "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," Mr. Cheney said in an address to the group, Frontiers of Freedom, in Washington.
Mr. Murtha was disdainful of the vice president's remarks, saying that "people with five deferments" had no right to make such remarks. Mr. Cheney, like millions of other young men of the era, avoided military service during the Vietnam war.
Mr. Murtha's call for a pullout was condemned by some House Republicans.
"We are in the process of delivering a free Iraq," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He said the creation of a new Iraq would make the Middle East and the world safer and stand in history like the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. As for talk of a pullout, Mr. Hunter said, "Lots of our enemies think America is capable only of fighting a two-week war."
Representative Kay Granger of Texas, a Republican member of the Appropriation's defense subcommittee who appeared with Mr. Hunter, said a quick withdrawal from Iraq would break faith with America's troops. As for the Americans killed in Iraq, she said, a withdrawal would mean "their lives have been lost in vain." Earlier, Ms. Granger called Mr. Murtha's remarks "reprehensible and irresponsible," according to The Associated Press.
"It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," she said, according to The A.P. Mr. Murtha's demeanor and personal history as well as his status on the Appropriations Committee may lend extra weight to his words. He generally shuns publicity and does not often speak on the House floor.
After serving in the Marines in the early 1950's, he re-enlisted in 1966, at the age of 34, and served in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, according to The Almanac of American Politics. When he won his House seat in a special election in February 1974 he became the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress.
Mr. Cheney's speech came a day after the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the Bush administration to make regular progress reports on the war and for 2006 to be a "transition year" in which the Iraqis will assume responsibility for security of their own country.
The vice president's assertions that some politicians want to rewrite history was aimed at those who voted in 2002 to authorize force against Saddam Hussein but have more recently become critics of Iraq campaign, charging that the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by the old Baghdad regime.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Mr. Cheney's speech of Wednesday night as well as President Bush's recent remarks on Iraq show that they have "shamlessly decided to play politics."
"We're at war," Mr. Reid said. "We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief."
At his Capitol news conference, Mr. Murtha became emotional as he spoke of hospital visits to wounded troops. "What demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace," he said.
"Our troops have become the primary target for the insurgency," Mr. Murtha said. Insurgents, he said, "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence." He went on to say that, before the Iraqi elections in December, the country's people and its emerging government "must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."
"All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free," he said. "Free from United States occupation."
Senior Democrat calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq
Rep. Murtha: 'U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can'
Thursday, November 17, 2005; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Warning that other global threats "cannot be ignored," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, a leading adviser on defense issues, called on Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
"U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq," the senior lawmaker said. "It's time for a change in direction."
He said he believes all the forces could be redeployed over a six-month period.
Murtha, a former Marine Corps colonel and veteran of the Vietnam war, is the first senior lawmaker to call for an immediate withdrawal. Other critics of the war have asked President Bush to set up a timetable for withdrawal. (Watch Murtha's take on 'flawed policy wrapped in illusion' -- 8:11)
Murtha's call for a withdrawal may have a significant impact on the debate over the future of the Iraq war, as both Democrats and Republicans seek his advice on military and veterans' issues.
"A man of stature of John Murtha -- that's a pretty heavy hit, I don't mind telling you," said North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, sponsor of the House resolution that calls for a timetable for withdrawal. "He ... gives a lot of weight to this debate."
Jones said he thinks this will make "some Republicans think about their responsibility as relates to the war in Iraq" and that "this is a week that will help further the debate -- ignite the debate."
more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
Cyrano...
JINX!!!!
You owe dub some coke.
NonnyO
According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act.
In January 2002, 47% of Americans wanted their government to stop terrorism even if it reduced civil liberties. By November 2003 this number had dropped to 31%, indicating either increasing concern about expanding government powers or reduced fear of terrorism. From 2003 to 2004, nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the USA PATRIOT Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough. By 2005, the people polled were statistically divided half and half for and against the USA PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, only half of the people polled claimed to know some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. After the 2004 elections, the number of people claiming to know some of the provisions fell sharply.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
Senators Threaten to Hold Up Patriot Act
Read the story first.... then I'd suggest a one-sentence email to your senators:
"Let the Patriot Act Expire!!!"
Wow - I had read that Murtha might do this.
I like this - I have been waiting for someone like Senator Murtha to say this:
Mr. Murtha was disdainful of the vice president's remarks, saying that "people with five deferments" had no right to make such remarks. Mr. Cheney, like millions of other young men of the era, avoided military service during the Vietnam war.
This video graphically shows how the primary neocons & chickenhawks avoided service - same who now send people to die for oil.
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
Go Murtha!
Someone the other night asked if Murtha would be willing to step up--and lo and behold, he has!
The person asked said he doubted Murtha would do it. Makes me feel even better to know he spoke up, overcoming a natural tendency to sit back.
Talking to Stephanie on the phone earlier, I could hear the beginnings of deep resolve to not quit yet as well.
Thanks, Mr. Cheney! Thanks, Mr. Rove! Thanks, Judge Kay today--you have created a continually solidifying front on the side of the angels!
(Also heard about a Wal-Mart going up a few miles from here--must check that out!)
Dwazhon:
I thought the analysis you linked to in your post is very cogent and the topic is very critical to understanding the poltical dynamic in America today:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/17/64127/639
Thanks!
Chuck in Doha
Truth:
Also, on the idea of "what to do" in Iraq, I think Senator Kerry's position has many positive elements, such as re-deloying our military force away from street patrols as a first step. Local police need to do that ASAP:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html
The relevant part starts about half-way down the piece.
Chuck in Doha
Chuck-
Clear on the contract clarification. Join you on the top thread.
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.
Now I must get back to work.
Thanks everybody for the great articles and links.
Will take them in after work tonight.
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.