Tuesday, April 24, 2007

How Supportive

From the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, April 24 -- A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.

Suicide attackers rarely penetrate defenses that surround American troops, but a 10-week-old U.S. counterinsurgency strategy has placed them in outposts and police stations that some soldiers say have made them more vulnerable.

So spare me the phony rhetoric about supporting the troops. The surge--a.k.a. the escalation--puts more US soldiers in more jeopardy. Placing troops in harm's way is the nature of war. If the interests of GIs were the driving force of decisionmaking, civilian leaders would never order troops out of their barracks. Consequently, it's folly for George W. Bush and his comrades to argue that the Democrats are not supporting the troops. Is it supportive of the troops to deploy them in positions that render them more vulnerable? Of course not. It may be necessary to do so. But if this current policy is flawed, then Bush is sacrificing these Americans for naught. Which isn't all that supportive.

Posted by David Corn at April 24, 2007 10:29 AM


Hajji said...


The idiocy continues and WILL continue until the people of this nation wake up and demand compliance to international law, the will of the people and SANITY of their so-called "Reprehensatives".

Yet, even after the expected "Veto" of the pending "out in a year" legislation, will we hear YOUR call for impeachment of this MALadminstruation?

Anybody who speaks for allowing such murderous crooks to remain in power shouldn't be surprised to find themselves blood-spattered.

C'mon...say it! MMMMM---PEACH!


Saladin said...

We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)

by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2007

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.

Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying – not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.

Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction – but our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.

As an Air Force officer serving from 1963–1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.

Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.

The argument for staying – to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region – logically falls on deaf ears.

If the justifications for war were wrong;

If the war is going badly;

If we can’t afford the costs, both human and economic;

If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;

If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;


Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.

More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
Is Dr. Paul the only voice of reason left to represent we the people? The only opposition? How ironic that this Civil Libertarian is forced to endure the label Republican, but then, the left and right just ignore him anyway. They are all a disgrace to the country and our Constitution.

Robert S said...

On Bush refusing to offer any comedy at the Correspondent's Dinner...He could have used the one liners he threw out at the Tipp City Town Hall:

# "Politics comes and goes, but your principles don't. And everybody wants to be loved -- not everybody. ... You never heard anybody say, 'I want to be despised; I'm running for office."'

# "The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience."

# "There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

# "There are some similarities, of course" between Iraq and Vietnam. "Death is terrible."

# "I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times."


Polls just go poof at times, especially in black neighborhoods on election days, in places like Cleveland. Polls go poof when moved without warning; when opened without adequate machines or ballots...ooops, that's not what he was referring to...so sorry, pardon me...


Is it supportive of the troops to deploy them in positions that render them more vulnerable? Of course not. It may be necessary to do so. But if this current policy is flawed, then Bush is sacrificing these Americans for naught. - David Corn

It may be necessary to do so? Gee whiz, from a guy who once wasn't afraid to label his site "Bush Lies" we might have expected a slightly more forceful statement? But, has Hajji has reminded us, "Everything we know is wrong." Or somethin' like that.

Robert S said...

Kucinich delays announcement of Articles of Impeachment for Cheney
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday April 24, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has announced that he will delay the introduction of Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney originally scheduled for noon today. The change came on account of the Vice President's hospital visit this morning.

"News reports this morning indicate the Vice President was experiencing a medical crisis. Until the Vice President's condition is clarified, I am placing any action on hold," the Congressman announced in a statement released to RAW STORY.

The Vice President had apparently returned to the White House earlier after visiting the George Washington University Medical Center to have a blood clot in his leg examined.


Robert S said...

'Impeachment rallies' scheduled across US for Saturday
Josh Catone
Published: Monday April 23, 2007

People will call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney at over 100 actions planned across the country on Saturday, April 28.

The creative actions include rallies, banner drops on freeways, "guerrilla slide shows" on the sides of New York City buildings, skywriting, and "human murals" of people spelling out "IMPEACH!" with their bodies at Ocean Beach in San Francisco, Coney Island in New York, the foot of the Washington monument in Washington, D.C., and other locations.

"George Bush and Dick Cheney lied the nation into an illegal war of aggression, are spying on millions of innocent Americans, and have authorized the use of torture," said Jacob Park, the national coordinator of the April 28 impeachment actions. "The time has come for all Americans--particularly our representatives in Congress--to decide where they we stand. To turn a blind eye to lying, spying, and torture makes a mockery of our most basic values and the very notion of democracy."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) plans to introduce articles of impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

"Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn responded to Kucinich's announcement by saying that the vice president has served the nation honorably for almost 40 years," reports the Associated Press.

"The vice president is focused on the serious issues facing our nation," McGinn said.

On Friday, Vermont state senators passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of both the president and vice president for actions that have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

Robert S said...

Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry
The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2007

WASHINGTON — Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.

"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."

Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.

The decision by Bloch's office is the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.

The question of improper political influence over government decision-making is at the heart of the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the ongoing congressional investigation of the special e-mail system installed in the White House and other government offices by the Republican National Committee.

All administrations are political, but this White House has systematically brought electoral concerns to Cabinet agencies in a way unseen previously.


Robert S said...

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Personifies Why Many Dislike America and Its Policies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Monday 23 April 2007


Back to the Congressional hearing. With eyes narrowed and mouth in a contorted grimace, Congressman Rohrabacher attacked the two British and one Italian members of the European Parliament who testified before the committee. Reminding one of Joe McCarthy in tone and substance, Rohrabacher demeaned and degraded the report and chastised, belittled and berated the Parliamentarians. Remarkably, Rohrabacher said most of the CIA private flights that landed in Europe were to transport CIA agents all over the world, not to move prisoners. Yet the logs of the 1,245 flights have been tied by date and location to the movement of specific individual prisoners from one location to another.

Rohrabacher railed against anyone who questioned the right of the Bush administration to do whatever it wanted - legal or illegal - to prevent terrorist acts, and said that [European countries] not supporting the Bush policies were consigning their countrymen to terrorists. In particular, he said that any Americans who questioned the extraordinary rendition were un-American.

Citing historic examples of other countries kidnapping persons, Rohrabacher said Israel had every right to kidnap Nazi official Adolph Eichmann from Argentina, bring him to Israel and execute him. Rohrabacher conveniently forgot to mention that the Israeli government did put Eichmann on trial - a trial which none of those who have been extraordinarily rendered have had. Rohrabacher then attacked and belittled the European Community for outlawing the death penalty, saying, "You in the European Community won't stand up to evil people, you won't execute them. Eichmann deserved to be executed, just like these terrorists must be executed."

Rohrabacher never once mentioned due process, the rule of law, right to a trial for anyone picked up in the extraordinary rendition program. Merely because persons were "rendered" and imprisoned by the US meant to Rohrabacher they were guilty.

Rohrabacher said if European countries did not cooperate with the United States and go along with whatever the Bush administration wanted, they were condemning their countrymen to terrorists by not using extralegal methods to imprison terrorist suspects. When citizens attending the hearing, including members of Codepink Women for Peace and Veterans for Peace, heard Rohrabacher's statement, they collectively groaned. Then, much to the shock and disbelief of everyone in the hearing room, Rohrabacher said to those who had expressed displeasure at his statements: "I hope it's your family members that die when terrorists strike."

At that point, I had had enough of Rohrabacher. I stood up and said, "I did not serve 29 years in the US military and 16 years in the US diplomatic corps to see demise of the rule of law and violation of our own laws. Rohrabacher's statements are outrageous. No wonder the world hates us!"

Chairman Delahunt gaveled for me to stop speaking, and I was escorted by the police out of the committee room. I was not arrested.

Remarkably, I do agree with one thing Rohrabacher said. "They hate us."

Rohrabacher finished his sentence with, "They hate us because they hate our way of life." Unfortunately, many people do hate us, but it's not for our way of life.

It's for exactly the talk and actions that Rohrabacher and the Bush administration represent: illegal and unlawful actions, an arrogant attitude that America is always right and everyone else is wrong, that the world's resources are for the exclusive use of the United States and we have the right to invade and occupy any country.

Until we change the manner in which presidential administrations and the Congress operate and the way we approach our membership in the community of nations, the world will continue to question what America stands for.

Ann Wright retired as a colonel after serving 13 years on active duty and 16 years in the US Army Reserves. After 16 years in the US diplomatic corps, she resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq. She had been assigned in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001.

Robert S said...

A CIA Man Speaks His Mind on Secret Abductions
By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

Saladin said...

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth…. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now." Patrick Henry, 1775.

micki said...

Impeachment is a possibility only if Repugs climb on the train.

If Repugs choose to remain in denial that bush/cheney et al are total failures, crooks, etc., impeachment is not a viable option.

Unfortunate, but true.

micki said...

bush gives us a great BIG F-U! because he doesn't give a damn about We, the people...

Jeb Bush will be the Repug presidential candidate.

Stay the course.

micki said...

General Rove continues to fine-tune the voter suppression machine, as the distractions mount.

It does not matter how many votes are cast and counted to the Repugs, it matters more how many votes are suppressed.

Suppression is key to their "success."

capt said...

New Thread