« Hope | Main | Something in the Way He Moves »
Just Say NO to Big Media Consolidation
A.J. Liebling once said that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one." If so, then the concept of freedom of the press in our society is more endangered now than it has ever been before.
It's no secret that big corporations have been taking over the mainstream media. Fewer and fewer people now control more and more sources of news and information, and that means they now control more and more of what you see and hear.
The current administration's policies have made it possible for big money and big corporations to take over the print media, the cable broadcast media, and even the radio and television broadcast media. That last part is the most important part, because while print and cable media rely on privately-owned presses and distribution systems, the broadcast airwaves are public property.
That means the airwaves belong to you and me, not Rupert Murdoch or Viacom. Apparently they think otherwise, though. It's only natural for people with money and power want to accumulate more money and power, and that they want to use that money and power to control the flow of information for the rest of us.
This isn't exactly breaking news, of course. Ben Franklin struggled with the same problems, and Thomas Paine used pamphleteering as a radical medium to raise popular awareness and spread his anti-establishment views -- something not unlike blogging, when you come to think of it. William Randolph Hearst used the same tools of paper and ink and printing presses to manipulate the American people, and in so doing he directly affected the course of American history.
But in those cases, the paper and ink and printing presses were physical objects that individuals and companies could buy and sell. Principles and practices for print media were established, but were and are easily flouted by those with an agenda to pursue. Modern cable media are similar in some ways, but not in others -- in most places in this country, local cable access is owned and operated by specific companies that are granted monopoly status under local and state law.
The airwaves, however, are public property that no one can own. That's why when radio and television technologies first became available, laws were passed and regulations laid down to prevent any one individual or corporation from controlling too much of the broadcast spectrum. Those laws and regulations were eventually codified into something called the Fairness Doctrine -- something that, after many years of lobbying and back-door agitating, big money and big corporations have finally managed to dismantle.
And this is why media reform is such a critical issue for all of us. Fewer and fewer people controlling more and more information is the antithesis of open democracy. It's directly opposed to the principles of freedom of speech that are laid down in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It's one of the biggest threats to the liberty of literacy facing us today.
Fortunately, there are a number of individuals and organizations doing their best to fight the consolidation of information sources into the hands of a few. The media reform movement is pushing hard to reverse the recent trend of print, cable, and broadcast media being dominated by the agenda of a few.
One group in the forefront of this movement is Common Cause. And given the brief window of opportunity provided in part by the results of last November's election, now is the time that they really need our help. Together we can fight off the big media conglomerates and take back the public airwaves for the use of the public, the way they were always meant to be.
This email that we received this morning shows us one way that you can help to do that, right here, right now:
MySpace has censored our ad about the dangers of media consolidation.
Common Cause members have already sent tens of thousands of messages to the FCC - but in this final week before the deadline, we wanted to advertise on high-traffic websites to recruit new activists.
Outrageously, MySpace told us that they "won't allow that to be shown." (Click on the right to see one of the ads we submitted.)
Maybe MySpace doesn't want the word getting out about proposed changes to the ownership rules because they themselves are owned by a media conglomerate. In 2005, MySpace was gobbled up by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns Fox.
Their refusal proves our point: Big Media has too much control over what the public hears, sees and watches -- and we need to let the FCC know it.
While MySpace's decision is disappointing, there is still time to tell the FCC 'no more media consolidation'. But we need to move fast, and we need your input.
1. Go to CommonBlog and vote for the sites where you think we should place our ad. Time is short; we need to get this together in the next 24 hours.
2. If you are a MySpace user, put our ad up on your own MySpace page, or on any other website or blog you are active with.
Thank you for everything you do.
That's just one of many actions you can take; you can do what Common Cause suggests, or you can do something else instead. But either way, it's important that you do something, and do it now. The window of opportunity is closing fast, and we need to do everything we can to take back the media from the big money and big corporations that are trying to tell us what to think and how to feel and what to do.
Act now -- because together, we really can make a difference.
Dear Friend,
Tonight, President Bush is expected to adopt the McCain Doctrine and announce his plan to send up to 20,000 more troops to Iraq. That is a grave mistake.
The president's decision is wrong for Iraq and wrong for America -- and it's time for the new Congress to stop Bush from stubbornly pursuing his failed strategy in Iraq.
Congress should make it clear to the president that he will not get any money to put more of our troops in harm's way until he provides a plan to turn responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi people and to ultimately leave Iraq.
Click here ( http://johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/ ) to sign a petition calling on Congress to block funding for Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq.
The situation in Iraq demands a political solution -- not an escalation of the war that our generals agree won't help.
Escalating the war in Iraq sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people, to the region, and the world.
To get the Iraqis to begin to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving. And the best way to do that is by actually starting to leave -- beginning by immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 of our troops, not escalating the war.
George Bush wants to dig a deeper hole, but we need to climb out:
Join me in calling on Congress to block funding for Bush's escalation in Iraq.
Only when the U.S. starts leaving will the Iraqi people and other regional powers be forced to step up and engage in the search for a political solution -- and bring an end to the sectarian violence.
This president has had nearly four years to get Iraq right -- and at every step, he's gotten it wrong. Tonight, he's more wrong than ever about what America needs to do. It's time for Congress to act. And it's time for America to begin leaving Iraq.
Tell Congress to stop Bush's escalation of the war.
Thank you for taking action,
John Edwards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/a-surge-of-constitutional_b_38211.html
A Surge of Constitutionalism
"Must Read." Click on link for full story.
Then there was this little gem in the Comments section:
"a theory under which, once war is ==declared==, the president as commander in chief can ignore constitutional checks and balances"
Forgive me Senator Hart, but when exactly was the war in Iraq ==DECLARED==? Shouldn't that little fact alone completely invalidate the "unitary presidency" theory? Why does everyone in the US seem to be ignoring this detail?
By: amanda85 on January 09, 2007 at 06:44pm
[She's right. AUMF in Iraq was a resolution. It was not a declared "war." Anyway, Saddam is dead, no WMD were found, so technically we have NO reason to stay in Iraq - other than to make it safe for the US oil corporations who may stand to get 75% of the profits from Iraq's oil wells if the Iraq legislature okays it....]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/kennedy-offers-a-slam-dun_b_38223.html
Kennedy Offers A Slam Dunk To End The War
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/09/senator-kennedy-%e2%80%9ciraq-is-george-bushs-vietnam%e2%80%9d/
Senator Kennedy: “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6246553.stm
Blair plays down UK troops boost
Tony Blair has implied no more UK troops will be sent to Iraq, despite an expected commitment from the US to send another 20,000 soldiers to Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6247199.stm
EU plans 'industrial revolution'
The European Commission has urged its members to sign up to an unprecedented common energy policy, unveiling a plan to diversify the bloc's energy sources.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2140274.ece
'Many dead' as US bombers return to Somalia to attack 'al-Qa'ida suspects'
The United States has intervened overtly in Somalia for the first time in more than a decade with high-risk air strikes on suspected al-Qa'ida operatives believed to be hiding alongside defeated Islamist fighters.
The Pentagon said the US Special Operations Command had been pounding remote border areas of Somalia for the past two days. Witnesses reported many dead after an AC-130 aircraft fired on the village of Hayo, near the Kenyan border, on Monday.
The Bush administration claimed last night that "five to 10" people associated with al-Qa'ida had been killed, and a handful of others wounded in the attack, which, according to the Pentagon, was based on "credible intelligence".
Somali officials said US helicopter gunships launch-ed assaults yesterday over the southern tip of Somalia where local and Ethiopian soldiers had pursued the last remnants of the Islamists after ending their six-month rule of Mogadishu. "There are so many dead bodies and animals in the village," one official in Hayo told Reuters. Another said up to 27 people were killed in the strikes.
The aerial assault targeted three al-Qa'ida agents believed by US and Kenyan intelligence to be behind the American embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 when two co-ordinated attacks left more than 250 dead.
{Click on link for more.}
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2140237.ece
Leading article: One last, desperate, throw of the dice
Excerpts:
In rejecting the Baker plan and preferring the "surge", Mr Bush is risking a last, desperate throw of the dice in the hope of salvaging something from his ill-conceived and mismanaged war. He is arrogantly defying the will of US voters, who comprehensively rejected his prosecution of the war in the November elections. And he is exposing thousands more US troops to mortal danger, not to speak of the Iraqis whose lives will be sacrificed to the new US offensive.
~~~~~
It was instructive that the US mounted its raid against alleged al-Qa'ida operatives in Somalia just 48 hours before Mr Bush's address. This was a statement that the US was still intent on prosecuting its "war on terror", that it could still project its military power on several fronts, despite Iraq, and that the US could, and would, go it alone militarily. It should be no consolation to anyone that the scale of the débâcle in Iraq makes this opportunistic lightning raid seem little more than whistling in the dark.
{Click on link for more.}
Bush Troop Surge Already Under Way
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/colbert-helps-out-with-bushs-speech/
Colbert Helps Out with Bush’s Speech
Caveat: Splutter Factor.... :-)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/where-they-came-from/
Where They Came From
{Map showing where the 3000+ who died in Iraq came from.}
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/why-oh-why/
Why Oh Why?
Clearly, ABC feels that the average TV viewer cannot figure out that they are a right-wing, factually-challenged network devoted to hackery. That is the only conclusion to which I can come by the choice to hire Glenn Beck as a contributer.
{ABC is in competition for the kool-aid-drinking sheeple as their target audience....}
Posted by: DiAnne at January 10, 2007 07:44 PM
So, but already starting to send the 21,500 troops, he expects Congress will then be forced to automatically approve the supplemental spending bill...?
Is that how that works...?
Then what about what happened in Somalia?
We've taken a turn into a different surrealist painting, it seems....
More and more, I keep finding myself believing that the only solution to our problems is not just to hold on by our fingernails until 2008 -- but to exercise our constitutional rights and live up to our citizenship duties, and insist upon following through with the entire Four-I process:
INVESTIGATE
INDICT
IMPEACH
IMPRISON
disarm and destroy the bushi'ite militias,
Otter
Monkey I do not agree with defunding the troops; not now and not at one tiome. What I do is set a specific date for redployment. He should be given until July 10, 2007 to stabilize Iraq from a regional conflict and not one day longer. On that date if he does not begin to redploy troops to the Syrian and Iranian borders to start acting as peace keepers, then funds should gradually be withdrawn until a base force of say 50,000 troops are left until the next president takes office. This has become an endless war with no exit strategy. And we should be reminding him of the words exit strategy that he used against Al Gore in the debates of the 2000 election. I also believe that there needs to be a war surcharge now that is to pay for the additional 7 billion dollars that he is blowing, no more free lunch. And yes we need to seriously debate Charlie Rangel's proposed reinstatemnet of the draft, now before there is an international crisis when we would be woefully short of troops. That is my plan for ending the war responsibly.
and otter I am starting to come around on impeachment which I have opposed, but this is how I would do it. Congress should establish a specific plan to end the war and then when Bush tries to circumvent Congressional funding for the war, use investigations of war profiteering for impeachment. Additionally the Scooter Libby trial begins in 12 days and Cheney will be called as a witness. With any luck he will commit perjury.
Bubba
Sounds like a plan - need something legal and concrete and measurable and these are great ideas! We know he's a blatant repeat offender but need proof and an airtight case, as they're a sneaky bunch.
As I wander the internet looking for the mood du jour, I cannot help but wonder if we have really taken leave of our senses.
Is there anyone here or anywhere in the reality-based community that has one iota of doubt that we are under the authority of a madman?
If every ONE of us is not in the streets tomorrow SCREAMING, we have no business calling ourselves citizens. Or even human beings.
This holocaust must stop. NOW.
Idea: 50 state blogger network
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/10/131737/945
Karen
The whole world is watching too.
That is my plan for ending the war responsibly.
Posted by: Bubba at January 10, 2007 08:26 PM
Bubba:
Perhaps we need to set up a "liquidated damages" clause to any exit strategy legislation. Each day the war drags on, Congress repeals more and more of the tax cuts Bush provided to his rich friends so that the war can be paid for ad nauseum.
Perhaps some of the Bush "Pioneers" can also come up with millions in civil damages for the survivors of each and every one of the soldiers who died/maimed in this misadventure. Make that treble civil damages for the war profiteers. Start with KBR.
Recent events fuel ire toward US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6336891,00.html
I have to drive home through a blizzard. Bush will speak on the radio and I will try to stomach it if I can.
Bear in mind, if you listen to him, that he'll be talking about Iraq - but to those with relatives and friends affected in the middle east, south Asia, southeast Asia, Europe and here - events in Somalia, Saddam's botched execution, etc. are part of the equation - not just Bush's "surge" - he has a problem with thinking in black & white - a concrete mind.
It must be a concrete mind, because it's hard as a rock and thick as a brick.
Anyone else watching this? I think they nailed his feet to the floor...
I came home from a meeting to the line about how previously, there was political and sectarian "interference" that kept us from accomplishing our mission. But now, because suddenly Maliki "says" there won't be political or sectarian interference, our troops will be able to do their job (whatever that is).
That's pure, unadulterated Bush logic. Because Maliki says it won't happen, it won't happen.
What planet does he come from, anyway??????
I forced myself to watch His Ugliness.
The one thing that came through loud and clear (amidst the usual Bu!!$h!te propaganda), was that we can expect more death to our troops and to Iraqi people. But we knew that would happen if/when he escalated his war.
It's a waste of perfectly good lives for no good reason whatsoever, and a waste of money to put us further into debt....
Well I made it through his speech - nice propaganda piece. Thought about planning a summer vacation in Bagdad or Anwar, since it'll be all cleaned up with newly painted schools, happy groups of free & liberated people who have forgotten about their sectarian strife, & Al Quaida on the run.
Seriously, I could almost hear the edits being discussed by the speechwriters - "Hey, should we change God to The Author of Liberty again?"
When I came into the house, I heard a bit from the American Enterprise neocon who came up with most of the "surge" plan - he had a real heartless sound to his voice except more aroused sounding when discussing military battle.
I agreed more with the woman from the Carnegie Peace Institute - who said the "surge" was just "stay the course" but with more personnel. She pointed out that diplomacy had been ignored and that there can not really be a military solution given what Bush outlined, because too little has been altered.
Heard the Republican Senator from Oregon who opposes the Bush plan and for good reason, and he's not the only one. Bush cited Lieberman when discussing bipartisan solutions but rather than courting the more hawklike Democrats, it would be great to network with the more clear-headed Republicans. That is not what he has in mind. People at home did not vote for a new Congress in order to give Bush more power to wage war.
Senator Kerry spoke and gave a much more informational outline of who the factions are that Bush merely calls "haters" and so on - and of how a military solution is impossible, and Bush is putting the cart before the horse - leaving out completely the idea of diplomacy and involvement of foreign leaders who could influence the situation.
Bush's popularity may increase slightly for a short time just because of network exposure and supportive spin from the rightwing, subjective media and especially with his State of the Union address coming up. It will shortly go back down though, as he can not produce results for anything he proposes, foreign or domestic.
Bush does sound like he's been doing a little "Hooked on Phonics."
I didn't watch him - I just heard him over the airwaves while being splashed by semis.
Kerry Responds to Bush Address on Iraq
Bush plan “Is Neither New nor Forward Looking”
Says Congress Must Stop Bush Escalation of War
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) said today that he strongly opposes the Bush administration’s plan for expanding the US troop presence in Iraq and urged the president to redouble his effort to find a political and international solution to the worsening civil war in Iraq. Kerry said there was little support in Congress for expanding the war in Iraq and said the president must ask lawmakers to vote on a new authorization of the war if he wants to expand the mission beyond the current one.
"This plan is neither new nor forward looking. This is more of what’s taken us backwards. There’s no military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution, and the President has no plan to achieve it. We’re caught in a civil war in Iraq. Escalation is not the answer. The best answer is to set a deadline to bring our heroes home, force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq, and get Iraq’s neighbors to start taking more responsibility for Iraq’s security.”
Kerry
Heard a sound byte from neoCon MN senator Coleman and he's not in favor of a "surge"... just about passed out from shock, since he's previously rabidly supported DimWit for virtually everything else.
Klobuchar (new Dem senator, MN's first female senator) does not support sending more troops. Most of MNs reps are Dems, the ones I've heard quoted (including my own) are not in favor of more troops being sent to escalate Georgie's war....
NonnyO
That shocked me too (Norm Coleman)! He's no Wellstone ..
Someone sent me two surreal articles:
Birds Dropping From the Sky All Over the World
Canadians Say Americans Putting Bugs in Their Coins
Then, suddenly:
Dear Mr. President: Send Even MORE Troops (and you go, too!) ...from Michael Moore
1/10/07
Dear Mr. President,
Thanks for your address to the nation. It's good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!
You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!
Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.
Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:
1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.
2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.
3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.
Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!
We promise to write. Go get 'em W!
Yours,
Michael Moore
This is it. I'm going to bed. No more email.
HERE'S MY THERAPEUTIC RECOMMENDATION
#1 Take each statement and cut them out.....
#2 Paste each one each day to your bathroom mirror...
#3 Read each one.....
#4 Appreciate just how screwed we are!
#5 The bill is in the mail.
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant.
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
Cheney/Satan '08
Jail to the Chief
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full of Crap
Bad President! No Banana.
We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
We're Making Enemies Faster than We Can Kill Them
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand basket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Impeach Cheney First
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
Pray For Impeachment
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
One Nation Under Clod
2004: Embarrassed
2005: Horrified
2006: Terrified
Bush Never Exhaled
At Least Nixon Resigned
I am still trying to make sense of what I observed last night, and what I can say/write about it. By that I mean that I know that Bush makes no SENSE, but I am mulling over the mindset that was so obvious last night.
I saw fear and guilt, buried behind an obstinacy and grim determination to persist despite the facts. I just said to mbk that it reminded me of a dysfunctional family pattern wherein the paternalistic attitude overrides any sense of welfare for the family, and that is where madness reigns. (The Michael Moore missive, Posted by: DiAnne at January 11, 2007 12:14 AM, goes directly at that meme and it is brilliant in its targeting)
Anyone else have any insights? And what will we do today?
And what will we do today?
Posted by: karen at January 11, 2007 08:25 AM
Waking up after that speech last night, I seriously considered putting my head between my knees and kissing my ass goodbye, butt it's early yet and I'm open to suggestions...
Georgia Democrat likes what he hears
Marshall praises Bush speech for emphasis on patience in Iraq
After watching President Bush’s speech Wednesday night in his office on Capitol Hill, Marshall told me, “The most significant thing is that this is an Iraqi plan. If you think about it, what has the government of Iraq tried to do or suggested doing anything as significant as this, with Iraqis attempting to take the lead? This is a big deal.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16567703/
Posted by: karen at January 11, 2007 08:25 AM
A Crisis of Confidence
Bush's way forward may be sensible. But his face showed fear—and that's no way to rally a war-weary nation.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Jan. 10, 2007 - George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.
The president may well be right that we cannot afford to leave or lose in Iraq. He makes profound sense when he observes that a collapse of Iraq would mean the rise of a giant version of the Taliban's Afghanistan—with a million times the oil in the ground.
But if he was trying to assure the country that he had confidence in his own plan to prevent that collapse, well, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the words themselves weren't that assuring either. Does anyone in America or Iraq , or anywhere else in the world for that matter, really think that the Sunnis and Shia will make peace? Does anyone think that embedded American soldiers won't be in danger of being fragged by their own Iraqi brethren? Does anyone really think that Iran and Syria can be prevented from playing havoc in Iraq and the rest of the region by expressions of presidential will?
George Bush had the look of a man who knew he had made a royal hash of things in reaching for what most enlightened people would say was a noble goal: a stable, antiterrorist Iraq.
In his televised address about Iraq, the president used the book-lined backdrop of the library in the White House to evoke the midwar FDR. This was supposed to be the kind of matter-of-fact, detail-filled radio address that the Old Man gave each week through the course of the last Good War.
Problem was, Bush had long since forfeited the political credibility that FDR was able to maintain through his presidency. Roosevelt made huge mistakes, and the rules of the times allowed him to hold back much information. But the public believed him in his role as a leader of the Western World. Luckily for Roosevelt, he was on the radio for the most part.
Bush's political problem is not so much that he has lied to the American people—though he may well have done so—but that he seems for years to have been lying to himself.
What the voters saw on TV just now was a man struggling to come to grips with his own unwillingness to face facts. It's still a struggle. His acknowledgement of mistakes was oblique and not as brave as it sounded at first blush. Mistakes were made, and he said. "The responsibility rests with me," he said. What he meant to convey was that others had made the mistakes, but that he was stepped up to take the hit. Hoo-aw! He said that he had "consulted" congressional leaders of both parties before he came to a decision on sending more than 20,000 additional troops. He didn't really consult with members of Congress, and certainly not with Democrats, unless you consider Sen. Joe Lieberman a Democrat.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16568507/site/newsweek/
The Real Disaster
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.
Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.
Mr. Bush did acknowledge that some of his previous tactics had failed. But even then, the president sounded as if he were an accidental tourist in Iraq. He described the failure of last year’s effort to pacify Baghdad as if the White House and the Pentagon bore no responsibility.
In any case, Mr. Bush’s excuses were tragically inadequate. The nation needs an eyes-wide-open recognition that the only goal left is to get the U.S. military out of this civil war in a way that could minimize the slaughter of Iraqis and reduce the chances that the chaos Mr. Bush unleashed will engulf Iraq’s neighbors.
What it certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush’s open-ended threats to Iran and Syria.
Before Mr. Bush spoke, Americans knew he planned to send more troops to pacify lawless Baghdad. Mr. Bush’s task was to justify that escalation by acknowledging that there was no military solution to this war and outlining the political mission that the military would be serving. We were waiting for him to detail the specific milestones that he would set for the Iraqis, set clear timelines for when they would be expected to meet them, and explain what he intended to do if they again failed.
Instead, he said he had warned the Iraqis that if they didn’t come through, they would lose the faith of the American people. Has Mr. Bush really not noticed that the American people long ago lost faith in the Iraqi government — and in him as well? Americans know that this Iraqi government is captive to Shiite militias, with no interest in the unity, reconciliation and democracy that Mr. Bush says he wants.
Mr. Bush said yet again that he wanted the Iraqi government to step up to the task of providing its security, and that Iraq needed a law on the fair distribution of oil money. Iraq’s government needs to do a lot more than that, starting with disarming the sectarian militias that are feeding the civil war and purging the police forces that too often are really death squads. It needs to offer amnesty to insurgents and militia fighters willing to put down their weapons. It needs to do those things immediately.
Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government has heard this list before. But so long as Mr. Bush is willing to back that failed government indefinitely — enabling is the psychological term — Iraq’s leaders will have no reason to move against the militias and more fairly share power with the Sunni minority.
Mr. Bush did announce his plan for 20,000 more troops, and the White House trumpeted a $1 billion contribution to reconstruction efforts. Congress will debate these as if they are the real issues. But they are not. Talk of a “surge” ignores the other 132,000 American troops trapped by a failed strategy.
We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause. We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive political solution utterly lacking in Mr. Bush’s speech. This war has reached the point that merely prolonging it could make a bad ending even worse. Without a real plan to bring it to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offensives. There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11thu1.html
MSNBC: Defense Sec. Gates says U.S. military to grow by 92,000 troops.
more & more signing up for protests here today, especially young people, & in a blizzard
Posted by: madame defarge at January 11, 2007 08:53 AM
Hola, mi amiga!
All schools closed, Seattle & Everett, due to snow & ice. That means our clinic is closed too, so a day of forced vacation.
I'm afraid to drive but will walk to a protest if I have to wear snowshoes & be the only one there. I'll bet I won't be though!
You just KNEW this was coming, didn't you...? Now, what about all those dead civilians...?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_af/somalia_us
U.S. hunts for key terrorists in Somalia
NAIROBI, Kenya - None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al-Qaida were slain, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.
{More on link.}
And what will we do today?
Posted by: karen at January 11, 2007 08:25 AM
BTW, for what it's worth, here's what I'm doing...
I'm letting every politician from my state know that the war is THE issue & that I will not vote or support anyone -- regardless of party -- who continues to support Bush's war in any way. Politicians need to grow cajones & show that they have them. They must stop this escalation & war NOW. We cannot wait another 7 years & lose more lives, as we did in Vietnam, to stop this crap.
It is no longer business as usual. We have the power & the technology to start/support a new political party much quicker than in the past. We can vote all these bastards out & put those in place who will support peace.
Oh yeah, and bonjour mon petit singe...
(Iran already)
ARBIL, Iraq (AFP) - US troops have raided Iran's consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested five employees, an Iranian diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
"We don't know the reason for this," the diplomat said of the raid, which came amid mounting US accusations that Iranian agents are fomenting unrest in Iraq and ordering attacks on American forces.
"The Americans arrested five employees and took all the computers and documentation," the Iranian official said.
The Iranian consulate building in Arbil, which is the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, was sealed off by Kurdish security forces, according to an AFP correspondent at the scene.
more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070111/wl_mideast_afp/iran
better link & more info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html
(All oil doesn't belong to America?)
BEIJING (AP) — China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a planned investment by a Chinese oil company in an Iranian gas field.
"We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with)," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. Asked whether that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said: "This is our position."...>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-11-china-iran
Leave it to Bill in Portland Maine @ Daily Kos to help me cope...
The boys at Americablog found this exchange from the BBC comedy Blackadder. Leave it to the British to put things in perspective:
General: Now, Field Marshal Hague has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.
Captain Blackadder: Ah, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy, sir?
Captain Darling: How could you possibly know that Blackadder? It's classified information!
Captain Blackadder: It's the same plan that we used last time, and the seventeen times before that.
General: Exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing precisely what we've done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they'll expect us to do this time! There is, however, one small problem...
Captain Blackadder: That everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds?
General: That's right. And Field Marshal Hague is worried that this may be depressing the men a tad. So, he's looking to find a way to cheer them up.
Captain Blackadder: Well, his resignation and suicide would seem the obvious.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/11/84226/3452
mon petit singe...
Posted by: madame defarge at January 11, 2007 09:30 AM
Ya singed yer what?!?!
Oh, that's gotta hurt.
Today:
What: The Day After Protest
When: The day after Bush announces more troops to Iraq
Where: Gather at Red Square, University of Washington Campus. March to the military recruiting center
Saturday:
Congressman Jim McDermott
just returned from the middle east - talk & documentary
Kayakbiker and others will protest Guantanamo detentions in downtown Mpls today - wearing orange jumpsuits
Iran & Syria responses:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16435756.htm
It's amazing - Iran is Shiite and Syria is Sunni. Bush is making another big mistake. Senator Durbin pointed out that we needed a diplomatic surge. Senator Kerry as well. That could not happen under this Commander-in-Chief.
Even the Wall Street Journal wasn't down with the President's plan.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/the-war-at-home-the-morning-after/
oh my
Mideast Media Puzzle Over Bush Plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6252179.stm
It's not just us.
Just reading this over - it's strangely deja vu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn
Bush to Face Street Protests Over Iraq Escalation Plan
New York - The Bush administration's plan to beef up the U.S. military presence in Iraq is likely to create a new wave of protests across the United States in the coming days. As Bush is expected to announce his plans Wednesday to send approximately 20,000 more troops to Iraq, anti-war groups say they will hold rallies and sit-ins in dozens of cities across the nation to press the U.S. Congress to thwart any troop escalation.
Within 24 hours of Bush's announcement, there will be protests all over the country, according to Tom Andrews, former Congressman and director of Win Without War, one of the largest anti-war coalitions. Andrews' group, which is working closely with United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), another major anti-war umbrella group, has planned a series of protests, including a Web-based campaign to push Congress to block Bush's plans for Iraq.
In addition to rallies and sit-ins, the campaign includes personal YouTube.com appeals and photos calling for legislators in Washington to reject Bush's strategy for Iraq and call for an end to the occupation. Those participating in the Web-based campaign have already begun to download "No" signs, with petitions urging Congress to exercise its powers of the purse to block any escalation of war in Iraq.
"It is unbelievable that after the voters and the Iraqis said they want an end to this war, Bush is going to escalate it," said Leslie Cagan of UFPJ. "He was wrong to begin the war and he is wrong to prolong it even one more day." Cagan called the Iraq war "outrageous," and demanded that Bush recall all U.S. troops from Iraq. For his part, however, Bush has made clear that he not only intends to increase the size of the U.S. army in Iraq, but would also seek further funding for the war.
Some reports suggest that next month Bush is likely to ask Congress for emergency funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and what he calls the "war on terror" that would bring total military spending for fiscal year 2007 to more than $110 billion. The expected request for increased funding, if approved, would bring total spending on the war to more than $500 billion. But given the changed political climate on Capitol Hill, indications are that Bush's effort to boost funding and troop levels may not succeed. Now that they hold leadership positions in both houses of Congress, many Democrats are becoming increasingly critical of Bush's Iraq policy.
Calling the previous Congress a "rubber stamp" for Bush's Iraq policy, senior Democratic senator Edward Kennedy, in a speech Tuesday, said the Democrats would strongly oppose any further military escalation in Iraq. "It would be another mistake," he told reporters in Washington. "We must change course in Iraq, not escalate. American people voted for change. We have a solemn obligation to say we have heard their voices." In response to Bush's perceived plan for sending more troops, Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, took a similar stance.
"Congress is ready to use its authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending, what are the results we are receiving," she told the CBS television program Face the Nation.
Like Kennedy, Pelosi made it clear that Democrats would not accept military escalation, but said they were not in support of reducing funding for troops already in Iraq. Last week, Pelosi sent a letter to Bush saying there should be no increase in troops, while emphasizing the need for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, tens of thousands - and by some estimates hundreds of thousands - of Iraqi civilians have died while U.S. forces have also lost more than 3,000 troops. Anti-war groups said this week's campaign against the military escalation would culminate in a major national march on Washington on January 27. That event will be followed by a series of activities, including an interfaith peace service and a day-long program to educate legislators about the devastating consequences of the war. http://www.truthout.org
It's Time for an American Surge to Stop the Bush War in Iraq
Defying the vast majority of the American public and top military leaders, the president of the United States is about to announce an escalation of his failed war in Iraq. It appears to many that it comes down to the president's not wanting the failure of the Iraq war to occur on his watch, that the images of Americans being evacuated from the Green Zone be reserved for his successor in the White House. Without the character and fortitude to accept a difficult reality, the president has decided to prolong the agony with the commitment of additional US troops. This would mean that thousands more of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will die for a failed policy, a character flaw and a cynical political calculation.
What is astonishing is that the president might actually get away with it. Some in Congress, like Senators McCain and Graham, have launched a vigorous public campaign to support the president's escalation. Others, like Senator Biden, believe that there is nothing that Congress can do about it. That leaves a fed up American public, who issued a mandate in November for political leaders to start bringing our troops home, with only one option - hit the streets. We can begin this week 24 hours after the president announces his escalation.
The Win Without War Coalition, www.winwithoutwarus.org, and allied groups opposed to the war are urging Americans to flock to their town squares, churches, synagogues, neighborhood centers and parks 24 hours after the president announces his escalation of the war. They can sign up and learn more by going to the web site www.americasaysno.org hosted by Win Without War member True Majority. Those gathered will pause to recognize soldiers from their state who have lost their lives in Iraq. They will take a group photo of themselves and their answer to the president's escalation of the war with a simple and clear message: "NO!" The photos will be sent to their local newspaper and to campaign web site: www.americasaysno.org, where participants will be able to watch the response come in from neighborhoods throughout the country. Many will make a short video - "Why We Are Saying NO in 30 Seconds" and upload it on the web site and YouTube.
This will mark the beginning of a series of public actions against the war including a march in the nation's capitol on January 27 organized by United for Peace and Justice and a national "Meet Up With Members" in the district offices of Representatives and Senators during the first Congressional District Work period of the new Congress.
Voters took to the polls in November to demand that the government start bringing our troops home. A recent CNN poll indicates only one in ten Americans support sending more troops to Iraq. Fewer than a third of Americans support the war, with a clear majority saying that they want U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year. Before the November Congressional elections, Americans told pollsters that if the Democrats won they expected Congress to end the war.
Here is what General John Abizaid, our top commander in Iraq and the region, told the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago: "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey ... And I said ... if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no." Last month US soldiers stationed in Baghdad told the Associated Press that the city "is embroiled in civil warfare" between Shiites and Sunnis that "no number of American troops can stop." They worried that "dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties," and questioned whether "an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line."
There are, of course, options to the president's military escalation. Most sober analysts - and the majority of Americans - agree that there is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq, only a political one. The United States needs to work with regional governments, including Iran and Syria, to achieve reconciliation in Iraq. In a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, 82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans said we should directly engage with Syria and Iran to establish a political solution in Iraq, as was unanimously recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
The fate of our troops and any hope for turning around the disaster in Iraq now rests clearly with us. Whether or not Congress will allow the president to get away with his attempt to "double down" his failed gamble in Iraq will depend on a clear and robust rejection by the American people. When President Richard Nixon announced in April of 1970 that he would escalate the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia, Americans reacted with shock and disbelief. Protests erupted throughout the country, and Congress later banned US troops from operating in Cambodia and Laos. Today, more of the American public, including top military brass, is against this war and President Bush's proposed escalation than was opposed to the Vietnam War in 1970. It is time for an American surge to stop the Bush war in Iraq. We can begin this week with a simple and clear message: Mr. President, Members of Congress, read our lips: "NO!" http://www.commondreams.com
Friends,
Today between 11:00 am and 12 noon, the people of New Orleans will be taking to the streets in the "March for Survival". This will be a protest not only against the skyrocketing murder rate in New Orleans, but the very culture of corruption, failure of leadership and dysfunctional justice system that have plagued the city for decades.
Please keep all of the citizens of New Orleans in your thoughts and prayers as we continue the struggle to rebuild, restore and renew a better, safer and smarter New Orleans.
Peace, Love and Compassion,
Ian ~ aka The Irreverrent Reverend Indy =]
NonnyO has had problems signing on at times, so here are more:
Jason Leopold | The Architect of Mr. Bush's Plan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011107J.shtml
Jason Leopold writes: "By relying on the recommendations of neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on what steps the White House should take to address the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, President Bush has once again ignored the advice of
career military officials and even some Republican lawmakers - many of whom in recent weeks have urged Bush to resist implementing a policy that would result in escalating the war - and instead has chosen to rely on the proposals drafted by hawkish, think-tank intellectuals that could very well backfire and end up embroiling the United States in an even bloodier conflict."
The New York Times | The Real Disaster
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011107K.shtml
"President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush's war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it," writes the New York Times.
Nancy Pelosi | Escalating War in Iraq Sends Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011107L.shtml
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin have released a statement on President Bush's address to the nation on the war in Iraq.
Troop Surge Already Under Way
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011107M.shtml
The troop surge in Iraq is already under way. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad Wednesday. An additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday.
Norman Solomon | The Headless Horseman of the Apocalypse
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011107N.shtml
Norman Solomon writes: "President Bush may be a headless horseman. But the biggest problem is what he rode in on. Martin Luther King Jr. had a good name for it 40 years ago: 'The madness of militarism.' We can blame Bush all we want - and he does hold the reins right now - but his main enablers these days are the fastidious public servants in Congress. They keep preparing the hay, freshening the water, oiling the saddle, even while criticizing the inappropriately jocular rider. And when the band plays 'Hail to the Jockey,' most of the grown-up stable boys and girls can't help saluting.
Official: Somalia strike missed al Qaeda suspects
January 11, 2007
Story Highlights•
• Hunt still on for al Qaeda operatives wanted in embassy bombings
• Residents report new fighting in southern Somalia
• Reports says up to 35 killed in fighting, resulting fires
• Officials: U.S. special forces entered Somalia with Ethiopians
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al Qaeda were killed, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/11/somalia.ap/index.html
MSNBC: Defense Sec. Gates says U.S. military to grow by 92,000 troops.
Posted by: monkey at January 11, 2007 08:54 AM
I saw that headline, too....
I just have one question:
Since there are no lines at recruiter's offices of people enlisting in the military... just WHERE are those 92,000 going to come from...?
Posted by: DiAnne at January 11, 2007 12:20 AM
Priceless!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/olbermann-a-look-backward-at-the-commanders-credibility/
Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility
Posted by: DiAnne at January 11, 2007 10:15 AM
Seems it was only the last thread where I was having problems. I could get to it, but then the message at the bottom of the screen said it was loading archives... and the screen froze. I couldn't even get to other web sites. I could only exit IE altogether and start over.
So far, no problems on this thread, no problems on threads previous to the last one... it was only on the last thread that I was having problems posting.
I dunno why.
Still, I appreciate your posting stories I haven't gotten to yet....
Yeah, thanks DiAnne, I was jonesin' for my Nonny fix...
My Heroine
Posted by: DiAnne at January 11, 2007 12:10 AM
No, Coleman's most assuredly no Wellstone! Part of last night's in-state news even featured a disappointed quote from our neoCon governor (shock, shock - he's been on several trips to Iraq, has ardently "supported the troops" - and Dumbya's war)... but 2600 MN guard troops also just got notice that their one-year tour of duty in Iraq has now been extended, some have already served tours of duty before that, and just yesterday came the news that a third guard died from one of the units that just lost two others whose funerals were just a couple of weeks ago, so three deaths from the same unit (all from IEDs) within two or three weeks from the same unit have hit this state pretty hard.
Other neoCons besides Coleman are not supporting the escalation (and it is an escalation, not a 'surge'). True, they're probably looking at their own political futures which are looking rather bleak at this point just because they've supported Dumbya's war in the past, but it's still pretty amazing that some rats have enough sense to leave a sinking ship of state.
Posted by: monkey at January 11, 2007 10:41 AM
All hail the simian hero! :-)
At least I have now "trained" myself - I put down my coffee cup and swallow my food BEFORE I read your quotable quips!
Between you and our furry otter friend, I've had to clean off my monitor and keyboard more than once....
Breaking up the monotony of the bad news for the last six years with comic relief is no laughing matter... political satire and other ironies are very necessary to maintain a rational outlook on bleak reality.
'Creme de Paffalov,' anyone? ;-)
My analysis of last night; please recommend:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/11/105125/883
People Get Ready
by Curtis Mayfield & The Impressions
People get ready, there's a train a comin'
You don't need no baggage, you just get on board
All you need is faith to hear the diesels hummin'
Don't need no ticket, you just thank the Lord
People get ready for the train to Jordan
It's picking up passengers from coast to coast
Faith is the key, open the doors and board 'em
There's hope for all among those loved the most.
There ain't no room for the hopeless sinner
Who would hurt all mankind just to save his own
Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner
For there's no hiding place against the Kingdom's throne
So people get ready, there's a train a comin'
You don't need no baggage, you just get on board
All you need is faith to hear the diesels hummin'
Don't need no ticket, you just thank the Lord
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice let slip her news media preferences Thursday, saying, "I love every single one" of Fox News network's correspondents and also favors CBS anchor Harry Smith.
In comments overheard on an open microphone between morning television interviews, including one with Fox, the top U.S. diplomat said: "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them."
But Rice told an aide that when she was next in Iraq she would like to do a "one-on-one" interview with CBS "The Early Show" anchor Harry Smith.
"He's a decent guy. I know they are, like, 55 in the ratings, but I like him," Rice said in comments monitored by Reuters on a television feed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/rice.reut/index.html
Center for American Progress:
Last night, President Bush disregarded the opposition of U.S. military commanders, lawmakers of both parties, the Iraq Study Group (ISG), and the American public and announced to the nation that he plans to increase America's presence in Iraq by approximately 21,500 troops, with no timetable for when troop levels would be drawn back down. The right wing tried to present this "surge" as the "last chance for success" in Iraq. But as the Associated Press noted, Bush's escalation announcement is simply the "latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times." When Bush sent increased U.S. forces into Baghdad in June 2006, the security situation actually deteriorated further and violence increased. One Bush administration official admitted that the escalation plan is "more of a political decision than a military one" and military commanders have made clear to the President that U.S. forces are already overstretched. As Bush noted in June 28, 2005, sending more troops to Iraq will "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has introduced legislation demanding accountability from the President, and the Center for American Progress has released a memo recommending "an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number." American Progress also has a strategic redeployment plan detailing "a responsible exit from Iraq as part of a balanced global strategy to make Americans safer."
REPACKAGING FAILURE: Even before Bush spoke to the nation last night, the escalation plan was underway. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad yesterday and an "additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday." The troop increase will cost $5.6 billion, in addition to $1.2 billion to finance a rebuilding and jobs program. The American troop presence in Iraq will swell to approximately 153,000 soldiers. But the AP reported that the 21,500 additional troops "will include only one major combat unit that was not otherwise scheduled to go. The rest of the boost will come from sending a few brigades earlier than planned and extending the tours of others." Bush last night presented this plan as a "new strategy" that will "help us succeed in the fight against terror." But in reality, "Bush's overall strategy seems likely to remain wholly unchanged: To keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes for the Iraqi government to start functioning effectively. That means using American bodies and firepower, pretty much indefinitely, to prop up a country racked by civil war and chafing under occupation. That means the American death count ticks on, with no end in sight," writes the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin. One senior Army official acknowledged that there will be "more violence than usual because of the surge."
IGNORING THE PUBLIC, MILITARY, AND EXPERTS: It is clear that Bush did not listen to the American public when figuring out the way forward in Iraq. A recent CBS poll found that just 18 percent of the American public supports an escalation of involvement in Iraq. He also didn't heed the advice of his military commanders. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were unanimously opposed to the escalation. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly declared in December that he does not support escalation, "is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge,'" columnist Robert Novak reported. Military commanders also told the President that they had just 9,000 soldiers and Marines available to go to Iraq. Bush also ignored advice from America's "allies abroad." British Prime Minister Tony Blair made clear that he will not send more U.K. troops to Iraq, but will instead "stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army." The ISG also did not recommend an escalation in troops in its recent report, and group member Leon Panetta told Newsweek that increasing troops will send the "wrong message to the Iraqis."
IGNORING CONGRESS: The President also claimed that his decision came after he "consulted members of Congress from both parties." But according to a tally by The Progress Report, many more lawmakers oppose the escalation than support it. (Help us fill in this list. Call your members of Congress, ask their position, then email their response us.) After a meeting last week between Bush and 30 Republican senators, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) observed, "I think I was the only senator who acted like he would be supportive. I was surprised that no one said it but me." Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), said on the Senate floor, "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote Bush a letter telling him that escalation "is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake." Even traditional Bush administration ally Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) -- who is currently in Baghdad -- yesterday said that he does "not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer."
WHY IT WON'T WORK -- TROOP STRAINS: Not only did the military admit to the President that it does not have enough troops to support the escalation, but it does not have enough armor. Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun reported that the thousands of troops Bush ordered to Iraq "will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said." A report in early 2006 found that the Army had become a "thin green line," stretched to a "breaking point." Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a leading proponent of Bush's plan, admitted, "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up." More than 3,000 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq war.
WHY IT WON'T WORK -- POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS: With military commanders largely opposed to escalation, one Bush administration official acknowledged to NBC News "that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." The Washington Post reported yesterday that after the ISG came out, how "to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme" and "some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton."
WHY IT WON'T WORK -- PAST FAILURES: AP noted that "there's clearly a been-there, done-that feel to Bush's new plan. It's an old story: The U.S. before has temporarily raised troop levels, taken steps to encourage democracy, spent money on education and public works and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government." These past approaches have also failed. In June 2006, Bush announced a major effort to secure Baghdad, stating at a news conference that over 7,000 U.S.-led coalition troops would be moved into the city. But since that time, violence in Baghdad has drastically increased. Approximately 106 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq in December, making it the deadliest month in 2006. Then-Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. William B. Caldwell admitted that the "big push" was a big failure, as did Bush, who conceded that "our operations to secure Baghdad have encountered greater resistance. ... I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I'm not satisfied, either." Another part of the new U.S. strategy will create "gated communities" in Baghdad by "sealing off discrete areas and forcibly removing insurgents, then stationing American units in the neighborhood to keep the peace and working to create jobs for residents." But this approach, too, was tried during the Vietnam War and was a "spectacular failure." "It didn't work," said Conrad Crane, one of the authors of the military's counterinsurgency manual. "They ended up locking up the insurgents with the population in these new hamlets. ... It actually helped the Viet Cong with recruiting."