Monday, January 8, 2007

Deck Chairs Don't Matter; The Coming (Democratic) Fight on the War


Still traveling. I'll be back later this week. But I do manage to keep up with the headlines. The New York Times had a wonderful example of top-downism analysis regarding Iraq. It came in a story the other day on George W. Bush's decision to name Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to be the new U.S. envoy at the United Nations. This move is part of what appears to be a personnel shakeup designed as a prelude to Bush's surge--that is, escalation--in Iraq. As part of this shifting of deck chairs, Bush reportedly will appoint Ryan Crocker, a veteran diplomat and the current U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, to replace Khalilzad in Iraq. And Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg suggested that the Crocker-for-Khalilzad trade may make a difference:

As a Sunni Muslim, Mr. Khalilzad has been perceived by some Iraqi Shiites as not sympathetic enough to their views; removing him from Baghdad would help Mr. Bush make a fresh start there.

This is the question: is Khalilzad's presence in Baghdad really a factor in the sectarian violence and chaos that has besieged that nation in the wake of Bush's invasion? It's hard to believe that the leaders of the various sects, militias, and death squads--all propelled by deep-rooted agendas of their own--will say, "Well, now that Zalmay is gone, I don't have as much reason to fight, kill and hate." What's presently fueling the violence and conflict in Iraq are fundamental factors, not the presence of one particular U.S. official or any particular wrinkle in U.S. policy itself. A new ambassador will not change much. It's far too late in the mess for that.

Meanwhile, back home a drama may be shaping up: how tough the newly in control congressional Democrats will be on Bush's Iraq policy, especially as he moves toward deploying more troops. A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he could live with a temporary "surge," and House and Senate Democratic leaders routinely were saying they had no desire to rein in Bush by limiting the funding for the war. They were fearful of being cast as betrayers of the troops and did not want to be blamed for losing Iraq.

These days, the top Dems are expressing skepticism about Bush's escalation. No way can this work, declared Senator Joseph Biden, the new chairmen of the foreign relations committee. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid sent Bush a letter telling him that Democrats oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq and want him to start pulling out troops in four to six months. On Sunday, Pelosi went further, saying that the Democrats might deny him money for any additional troops. Yet at the same time, other Dems--notably Biden and Representative Steny Hoyer, the number-two in the House--discounted the prospect of the Democrats blocking Bush's escalation in Iraq by denying him money. So it remains to be seen how far the Democrats will go to stop Bush in Iraq. They may even have a fight among themselves before they go up against the president.

Posted by David Corn at January 8, 2007 05:53 AM

31 comments:

capt said...

Mr. David Corn,

It seems the leadership[sic] of the Democratic party can say anything they want, in-fight as much as they want but Bush has already decided and the "surge" will go on schedule.

I bet the GOP in the house could pull the purse strings closed and STILL the "surge" will go on schedule.

The MSM will portray a scenario where Bush win's the argument and he will pay for his victory with more of our troops lives (and many more Iraqis).

It will get worse. They cannot stop a madman by being coy or reasonable.


Thanks for all of your work.


Kirk

capt said...

Follow the money



While the new Democratic leadership of Congress talks a good game about reform and the need to purge the corrupting influence of special interest money from politics, they cozy up to the same fatcat lobbyists who controlled the GOP-led Congress for the past 12 years.

Last week, some 200 well-heeled lobbyists and political action committee directors shelled out $1,000 each to rub elbows with the new Democratic congress - a repeat of a similar event Republicans staged in 1995 after they won control.

Along Washington's K Street, also known as "lobbyist's row" or "Gucci Gulch," the phones started ringing the day after the November mid-term elections with calls from Democrats who wanted money to help with debt retirement.

In politics, previous contributions to opponents can be overlooked as long as a PAC check is forthcoming to help pay off campaign debts or start the campaign fund rolling for 2008.

The national Democratic campaign committees set up special fund raising units to target business PACs and special interest group money and divert those funds away from a has-been GOP leadership and into the coffers of the new leadership.

"It's always about the money," grumbles one PAC director, who asked not to be identified.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

It always has been and remains - all about the money.

UGH!



capt

capt said...

Bush in the Bunker



"A former State Department diplomat summed up Bush's rule in one sentence: ‘Bush is acting like a dictator who is ready to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain in the White House. He defies the will of his own people and has assumed powers of surveillance and secrecy that used to be found in the Kremlin.’"

"The American people are forced to consume a daily diet of triumphalist slogans doled out by the media and fattened by fawning praise of the president from a chorus of highly paid commentators."

"He is portrayed as a pious crusader leading Christians into battle against the infidels. Evoking the glory of God and divine guidance, Bush claims to be leading his people to new glory."

"The reality looks very different. The U.S. is nearly bankrupt, saddled with an unprecedented debt. It is bogged down in an unwinnable Civil War that Bush continues to throw lives and billions of dollars into."

"George W. Bush remains largely isolated from his people, keeping the company of a diminishing circle of trusted advisers."



More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Petty tyrants are all the same, eh?


capt

capt said...

Bush in the Bunker


[…]

It already appears certain that the president will almost completely ignore the report presented in early December by the Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker. Sources say that Bush is opposed to two key proposals in the report: a diplomatic offensive that would involve Iran and Syria and Washington exerting even more pressure on the Maliki government. Instead, Bush seems determined to send even more US troops into the Iraqi civil war, despite the Pentagon's conviction that this will only increase the number of US casualties.

Bush's proposal is expected to involve deploying tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq. Before Christmas, the White House announced plans to beef up Army and Marine presence in the country. It appears that not even the president expects to be able to bring US troops home anytime soon.

Bush is as unconcerned about criticism from the Democrats as he is about the sharp decline in support for the war in the United States, where only 11 percent of the population favors sending more troops to Iraq. On its Web site, the Democratic National Committee called the president "the most stubborn man on Earth."

Not even the military supports the president anymore. John Abizaid and George Casey, the two US generals currently in charge in Iraq, also oppose the plans of their commander-in-chief. "The situation in Baghdad requires more Iraqi troops," Abizaid said snidely. He is worried that sending in additional GIs will only reinforce the unstable Iraqi administration's dependence on the United States. US military leaders also believe that the Maliki government has in fact no interest in ending the civil war on the country's streets.


More HERE

*****end of clip*****

A stable democracy was never more than a wish or wishful thinking. The oil oligarchs will have their prize, that is all that ever mattered to Bush.


capt

capt said...

Is Bush's War Winding Down or Heating Up?



Most Americans believe that Bush’s Iraqi misadventure is over. The occupation has lost the support of the electorate, the Congress, the generals and the troops. The Democrats are sitting back waiting for Bush to come to terms with reality. They don’t want to be accused of losing the war by forcing Bush out of Iraq. There are no more troops to commit, and when the "surge" fails, Bush will have no recourse but to withdraw. A little longer, everyone figures, and the senseless killing will be over.

Recent news reports indicate that this conclusion could be an even bigger miscalculation than the original invasion.


More HERE

*****end of clip*****

PCR - another good piece.


capt

Saladin said...

Capt, at some point in a politicians career they eventually reach that fork in the road. One direction points to a path of truth, justice and liberty for all, the other points to the path of never ending rivers of cash to further the career. As far as I can see, one path is nearly deserted while the other is over flowing with ladder climbers. I think we know which is which. Until money is taken out of the loop, all the good intentions in the world will fall by the wayside. They don't say "the path to hell is lined with good intentions" for nothing!

O'Reilly said...

Good posts David, Capt.

Thanks for all you do.

Saladin said...

As for what pelosi "hints" at, I am more concerned about what she is willing to actually DO! Talk is cheap, but very expensive in blood. Put up or shut up. Every hour is more lives down the drain.

O'Reilly said...



Unclaimed Territory
by Glenn Greenwald

ATTENTION: War supporters - your country needs you

One of the two principal architects of the "surge" strategy about to be adopted by the President is Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. He recently appeared at an AEI event with the other surge architect, Ret. Gen. Jack Keane (along with surge advocates Sens. McCain and Lieberman), to detail and defend his plan. Kagan thereafter issued an "Executive Summary" to accompany a report detailing what the "surge" plan requires in order to succeed (h/t Chasm).

Kagan makes it absolutely clear that an increase in the number of available troops and American military volunteers is critical to the success of the surge specifically, and for "victory" in the war in Iraq generally, and he therefore emphasizes how urgent it is for more Americans to enlist in the military if we are to Win:

MORE

------------

Glenn's argument makes sense when the fundamental justification for the war is solid and just.

But in this case, Saddam's WMDs did not exist. We went to secure Saddam's WMDs in order to keep the US and the free world secure and we found out the war was not necessary to secure that goal.

The existence of such a fundamental flaw in the mission has surely caused confusion among US citizens and increasingly, a loss of support for the conflict.

Moreover, since we've learned that Saddam was effective at keeping terrorists out of Iraq and that our actions brought them in, it seems our extended fight in Iraq is a result of our own government's incompetence.

Certainly, Iraq is not the central front in the war of terror. So why then should Americans line up to fight in this war? Kagan and the rest talk about solutions. What the Amerian people need to understand is a clearly stated explanation of these consequences of a phased withdrawal. The president has spent all his political capital. The American people will no longer heed his call to serve on faith.

It would seem the ongoing purpose of the conflict is to make Iraq safe for Iraqis. By my way of thinking, that is up to Iraqis.
#

O'Reilly said...


Pajamas Media and "major embarrassment" — connect the dots

By Glenn Greenwald

STORY HERE

----------
Maybe Corn will write about this from 30,000 feet over the Atlantic on his way home to cover Geroge Bush's pivotal "Come to your Countries Defense" speech on Wednesday.


Sorry about the snark. I think I caiught what Saladin has.

capt said...

Thanks for all you do.

The thanks belongs to all that post here. The more the better.


So thanks to you too!



capt

capt said...

Pajama Media, who is that again?


HA!



capt

capt said...

Also:

Pajamas Media A New Method of Fact Checking

From the last thread.

PJ + DC = ??


capt

O'Reilly said...


Intel: A Writer's Blocked

by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek

Jan. 15, 2007 issue - A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. Plame's outing as a CIA officer in July 2003 triggered a criminal probe that culminates next week when Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby goes on trial for perjury and obstruction.

But in what could be a precursor to a separate legal battle, Plame recently hired a lawyer to challenge the CIA Publications Review Board, which must clear writings by former employees. The panel refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a "nonofficial cover" officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman, according to an adviser to Plame, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive issue. "She believes this will effectively gut the book," said the adviser. Larry Johnson, a former colleague, said the agency's action seems punitive, given that other ex-CIA undercover officers have published books. But even Plame's friends acknowledge that few NOCs have done so. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the panel was still having "ongoing" talks with Plame to resolve the dispute. "The sole yardstick," he said, is that books "contain no classified information." A spokesman for Simon & Schuster, Plame's publisher, declined to comment. link

Gerald said...

The picture revealing Hitler Bush as a miserable failure is very, very appropiate!!!

Gerald said...

To kathleen, I have contempt for people like Lieberman and Mitt Romney who support the war and the killing of human beings but will refuse to have their children placed in harms way.

To carey, I have no problem with one year of charitable national service, like the Peace Corp but I refuse to accept the reinstatement of the military draft because there will be two services, such as domestic and foreign and you know who will be fighting in the foreign military service, the sons and daughters of the poor and the middle class. THERE WILL BE NO OUT DATE OR EXPIRATION DATE FOR FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE. ONCE YOU ARE IN, YOU WILL NEVER LEAVE. IT MEANS A LIFETIME COMMITMENT IN FIGHTING HITLER BUSH'S ENDLESS WARS.

Plus, I have come to the conclusion that the Nazi States of America is the DEVIL INCARNATE NATION!!!!!

Gerald said...

Hitler Bush is ready to nuke Iran

Gerald said...

Until the US finds the courage to acquire a Middle East policy of its own, Americans will continue to reap the evil sowed by the Israel Lobby.

Gerald said...

The Whining GOrPs

Gerald said...

The coming glory is finally here

I am so excited!!!!!

Gerald said...

Quagmire of the Vanities

Let's kill everyone!!!!!

Gerald said...

Please trust me when I say that the greatest smells are napalm in the morning and burning human flesh in the evening!!!!!

Gerald said...

Dead Men Walking

by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski

DIGG THIS

Without a doubt, George W. Bush is a lame duck with an even lamer foreign policy. We may well call from our own cells “Dead man walking!” Yet, just as the late Saddam Hussein, Bush remains publicly defiant, the model of a patriotic strongman in a time of national calamity.

As with the late Saddam Hussein, the national calamity Bush addresses – our Middle East militarism – is entirely of his own making. As with the late Saddam Hussein, Bush fancies himself a strategic genius with an under-appreciated political vision. As with the late Saddam Hussein, the number of his devotees has long dwindled, with those remaining faithful tending to do so for tradition rather than principle.

In the fifty states, we grieve our more than three thousand dead American troops, our 400 or so dead American contractors, and our 50,000 physically and psychologically scarred Americans. Occupied Iraq surely grieves its 650,000 dead Iraqis, its millions of wounded, its 25 to 40% unemployment rate, its lost oil revenues. It is abundantly clear that these Iraqi deaths and economic crimes are not the result of Saddam Hussein’s leadership. This fact is not missed by either average Americans or Iraqis.

We can certainly understand why our pimped out and bitch-slapped Iraqi Prime minister Nouri Maliki wants to quit. We wonder at the barely suppressed rage of George H.W. Bush and his team as their compromise path to save the presidency for Jeb – if not salvage what’s left of the U.S. Army – is tasted and then quickly spat out by baby Bush. We are amazed that the tinpot politics of the strutter-in-chief and his replacement of occupation-hardened Army leaders in Iraq by uniformed apparatchiks who promise more genuflecting death and destruction for the glory of the king.

Americans, through elections, polling, activism, lawsuits and personal sacrifice, have shifted their opinion of the war in Iraq, and now overwhelmingly reject the Bush Middle East militarism. At this point, even if we could agree that the goal was really permanent bases in the heart of the Middle East, a regional Sunni political implosion, shattered Iraqi society, and escalated economic and military aggression towards Israel’s arch enemy and China’s future energy provider – we would still sadly have to agree that it didn’t work out, and it has been neither lawful, successful nor worth the cost.

Even cheerleading neoconservatives simper that the “war” wasn’t conducted properly, with enough commitment, or appropriate enthusiasm. For them, the applicable maxim isn’t “pride goeth before a fall,” but the New Testament parable of the tares and the wheat. They see the field, after all their hard work, contaminated by weeds, made ugly, unprofitable, even embarrassing. They say, “An enemy hath done this,” unable to recognize their own handiwork.

Yet, the dead men continue to walk. Bush’s New strategy for Iraq will be unveiled soon, and will almost certainly include more dead men and women on all sides. In Bush’s final two lame duck years, in spite of a somewhat resistant Congress and an angry American public, he will be able to achieve at least as many dead Americans in Iraq as he has since 2003. We haven’t even mentioned dead Americans in the Afghan front against Iran, or the utter catastrophe that is post-invasion Afghanistan. Bush is lame indeed, but in a very real way, he will manage to continue the mayhem in the Middle East through inertia, if not by design.

The challenge is to shift the dynamic here at home, in our own prisonhouse of misplaced faith in government, our own illusions of goodness where instead there is only the now-metasticized military-industrial-congressional complex described by President Dwight D. Eisenhower nearly fifty years ago. Three generations since then, and maybe more, have disregarded, or perhaps never understood what we were paying for, in treasure and in constitutional principle.

To imagine freedom from our current foreign policy imbroglio, we step into dangerous territory. It is estimated that 60 million American voters have a financial stake in the military-industrial complex, not counting those who invest in the many American companies that rely on militarism abroad and at home to provide shareholder dividends. As we contemplate a draft, we forget that we really and truly don’t need one. Undereducated and underemployed young people may complain, but they don’t really count. Increasingly, college students are willing to take any paying job, including one offered in the name of “service” and patriotism. Their parents and grandparents will accept the draft as well, in the name of that societal restructure that Eisenhower warned against, and has now become the norm.

Thus, the dead man walking is not just our increasingly confused and cartoonish Mr. Bush. We see dead men walking in the discredited Republican party, once valued for both fiscal restraint and political seriousness. We find them in the United States Army, and in nearly every office of the E-ring of the Pentagon. We see dead men walking as we watch the young men and women who have been sent to the Middle East to spread “democracy” at the point of the gun, to occupy in a land that will never accept our occupation, and doesn’t need it. Finally, here at home, many Americans who otherwise would stand up and act to reject their government instead cower. Because for all of our understanding of the farce, and our recognition of the cure – leaving Iraq immediately – too many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, burdened by personal and national debt – to the tune of $440,000 for every American household. At least 60 million of us truly believe we need that Department of Defense paycheck, that military contract, that service-sector job that sucks greedily at the military-industrial teat.

Thus, Americans of all parties seem to be nastily cheering George W. Bush as he marches into the valley of the shadow of death, fearing no evil and intending even more murder, more destruction, more breaking of banks and breaking of hearts. Better him than us, we mutter. But we are all dead men walking.

This article originally appeared on MilitaryWeek.com.



January 8, 2007

Gerald said...

We can certainly understand why our pimped out and bitch-slapped Iraqi Prime minister Nouri Maliki wants to quit. We wonder at the barely suppressed rage of George H.W. Bush and his team as their compromise path to save the presidency for Jeb – if not salvage what’s left of the U.S. Army – is tasted and then quickly spat out by baby Bush. We are amazed that the tinpot politics of the strutter-in-chief and his replacement of occupation-hardened Army leaders in Iraq by uniformed apparatchiks who promise more genuflecting death and destruction for the glory of the king.

Gerald said...

Kissing my anus to build your dream

Gerald said...

Many more sons will die

Gerald said...

More shit to chew on

When will Nazi Americans ge tired of looking at their shit eating grins?

Gerald said...

Let spell some words correctly, such as appropriate and get and not ge!!!

Saladin said...

Gerald and Carey, I would never support the forced conscription of anyone for any reason, that is not my idea of a free people living in a free country. That is the very foundation of slavery.

capt said...

"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!" (Napoleon Bonaparte, 1798)

=
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men... The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws." (General F.S. Maude, commander of British forces in Iraq, 1917)

=
If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law: Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849


===

Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

capt said...

New thread