Can SOMEONE now say, "Michael Moore was right!"?
In my Perfect World, every sh*thead on Clear Channel and FOX news would have to apologize to Michael Moore. But in my Perfect World, those people are in jail for being public liars.
Mike's letter to Dubya is a keeper, and oh, so well written.
Did Dubya say Sacrifice? I only tuned in half way through, and had a hard time concentrating on his speech. Wow! That was boring!
Are you telling me we waited around since Mid October for THAT speech!?!
Did he say how he's going to pay for it? I heard somone say our grandchildren will have to pay $2 for ever $1 we are putting on the charge card right now.
I think the corporations who are making out on this deal should have a special War Tax to cover the expenses. The American citizen-soldier should only have to give blood, and limbs, and lives.
Whenever Bush says Nouri al-Maliki I keep hearing a faint past echo of PeeWee Herman's Magic Words: "meka leka hi meka heinie ho."
A small boy wishing hard.
He got some clue from his stylists about that, obviously, as he said 'Prime Minister Maliki' last night. Ruined my fun.
He doesn't look too slappy-happy anymore does he.
Did you wonder if he ever read any of those books in the WH library?
Just recollecting here, but remember when the set designers used to put banners, and repetitive memes, and significant portraits or even halos and large phallic symbols behind Dubya? I particularly liked the Teddy Roosevelt painting that one time. The big gun was hilarious.
If he's serious about trying to appear serious (go read it at carpetbagger's blog, I can't get my thingie to work here.)... all of a sudden, maybe Dubya could take a fashion pointer or two from the Afganistani Prime Minister, you know, that guy with all of the colorful robes and the seriously interesting hat... unless they've already figured that someone like me might be reminded of PeeWee's magic pal in a box, Jambi.
Gaaah, FOXnews is using Surge as a verb.
If you don't want to read Scott Ritter or Seymour Hersh, then GO read Pat Buchanan's recent article... he and I were right about keeping out of Vietraq even if we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I guess that's what America is all about? Debate. Opinion. Freedom of Speech... Or was at one time, before the Hannity Enemy Watch or whatever that fascist pig calls his black list...
Check this out...beachimpeach.com
Wish I was there...
Speaking of showing up for a good old fashioned anti-war protest, I'm really sorry I didn't get to the Peace Triangle on Sunday as planned, had a family commitment. I just heard theres' another one on Sunday. Of course, Pat has been there EVERY Sunday for 3 years. That man deserves our thanks. The windiest corner in Flint, Michigan is NOT a day on the beach.
War protest marks death No. 3,000
FLINT TOWNSHIP
THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION
Monday, January 08, 2007
By Chad Swiatecki
There are times when Bonnie Petee feels hopeless at the daily news of more military and civilian deaths in Iraq. Combating that dread by banding together with others who want an end to the war brought the Swartz Creek resident out in the cold rain Sunday. "I'm just saddened at the number of kids we've lost in the three years we've been there, and I don't really know what else to do," said Petee, one of about 40 peace marchers on the corner of Ballenger and Miller roads. "The American public doesn't really feel any day-to-day hardship from this like there was during World War II, so they don't think about it as much, and that frustrates me. I'm not sure exactly what the direction forward is from where we are now as a country, but I know it's not the way we're going." The war protests at the "peace triangle" have taken place almost weekly since before the war started in March 2003. But Sunday's demonstration - organized by the Progressive Caucus of Genesee County - was held in special observance of the war's 3,000 U.S. military deaths. As marchers toted signs calling for "Peace Now" and calling for an end to the war, passing vehicles honked in either support or defiance. Among the demonstrators were former state Rep. Jack Minore, D-Flint, and Flint resident Lila Lipscomb, mother of Sgt. Michael Pedersen, who was one of the first U.S. troops killed in the war. Lipscomb was a central figure in filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie on the war and has used her position to advocate political change and continuing support for injured veterans. "I chose to take a stand, and now that the Democrats have taken back the House and the Senate, it's time to take America back," a tearful Lipscomb told the crowd. "It's time to get back to the America that was loved and respected around the world instead of despised and hated for what we've done." President Bush is scheduled to give a report on changes in strategy in Iraq this week , which is expected to include an increase in troop levels. That means such demonstrators as Maryion Lee could be at it for a while longer. "We haven't all been out here every week because some of us have worked at other ways to spread the education this is a false war that never should have happened," said Lee, chair of the Progressive Caucus. "We're here today because every death has been terrible, but 3,000 is a milestone, and we're using it as a chance to show we're united in our cry for peace."
2007 Flint Journal
"No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?" - George Mason, one of America's founding fathers, July 20, 1787
(George Mason was the guy who was really concerned about the Constitution NOT including a Bill of Rights, and finally refused to sign it, I think. I'm in a hurry right now and can't take time to Google it, and Bloggedy Blogger is acting finicky again.)
Deadline looms as US toll reaches 3,000
01 January 2007
As United States President George Bush hacked down brushwood and rode his bike at his Crawford ranch this weekend, he gave the impression of a US president little preoccupied by two Iraq milestones that complicate his deliberations on a change of strategy.
The first, the hanging of Saddam Hussein, found Bush asleep, and according to advisers he spent only a short time discussing the execution. The second, the reports of the 3 000th US fatality in Iraq, evinced a only general remark.
"The most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives," Bush said at an end-of-year press conference in Texas. A White House spokesperson added simply that the president "will ensure their sacrifice was not made in vain".
The 3 000 figure was arrived at by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an internet-based monitoring group, and by the Associated Press, which keeps its own tally of US military deaths. The Pentagon disputed the figures, saying that the total of confirmed dead was 2 983. Nonetheless, the widespread reporting of the grim milestone appeared set to offset whatever boost Bush will get from the news about Saddam's death.
The White House is due to announce a new course for Baghdad on January 10. Time is running out for the US and British governments. The insurgents and those engaged in the sectarian killing can afford to wait. But domestic political pressures put a question mark over US staying power.
As a former Texas governor who signed a near-record number of death warrants, Bush will have had few qualms about the execution. There was also a personal element: he blamed Saddam for an assassination attempt on his father during a visit to Kuwait in 1993.
But far from marking the closure of an era in Iraq, Saddam's execution will exacerbate sectarian tensions. The fears of the minority Sunni Muslims will have been increased by the comments of his Shia executioners in support of the Shia militia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr.
Bush acknowledged the scale of the Iraq crisis on Saturday in a short statement on Saddam's death. Abandoning the gung-ho approach of past years, he cautioned that Saddam's demise would not halt the violence. "Many difficult choices and further sacrifices lie ahead," he said.
A US adviser involved in the talks on a new strategy said: "There is recognition that the present strategy is not working. But alternative options are limited." The source said there was a general disillusionment in the US administration with the Shia Muslim-dominated government led by the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, which is increasingly viewed as condoning -- or at least failing to act against -- sectarian killing. "It would have been easier to implement a new strategy in 2005. It gets harder every day. We have painted ourselves into a corner with this [Iraqi] government," the source said.
The debate within the administration about what to do next is still to be resolved. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, is leading those in favour of the "surge" approach: sending a further 20 000 to 40 000 US troops to Baghdad to reinforce the present US force of 140 000 in a final attempt to subdue the Iraqi capital.
But the White House was given several warnings on Saturday from figures across the political spectrum that any change of course in Iraq should be conducted in consultation with the new Congress. Richard Lugar, the outgoing Republican chairperson of the Senate foreign relations committee, told Fox News that should the administration proceed with any move to increase troop numbers without involving Congress, Bush could anticipate "a lot of hearings, a lot of study, a lot of criticism".
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter argued that only a surge in troop numbers, of 300 000 to 400 000 would make a difference. Speaking on CNN, Brzezinski criticised the core group gathered around Bush to determine Iraq policy. With the exception of the new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, he noted "a narrow decision-making group embedded in its own opinions ... is now making the decision about a change of course."
Also feeding into the White House are the views of the Pentagon, the state department, the intelligence services and, the catalyst for the rethink, the Iraq Study Group report, published last month. The debate is being conducted against a domestic political background in which opposition to the war is growing.
A senior US military source identified the core of the problem as the US pursuit of democratic government ahead of security and economic reconstruction. What Washington had ended up with was an Iraqi government that shared different objectives from the US: establishing the dominance of the Shia rather than fostering reconciliation and unity. He said the view of the US military in Iraq is that the police force was so riddled with sectarianism that the only possible course was to disband it and start again; it was also rife in the Iraqi army, a trend encouraged by the Iraqi government.
"We are still in charge. The Iraqi government is a facade," the military source said. "How can our strategy be to accelerate the handover to this government and the Iraq army. This is a rush to failure."
The British government privately shares the US administration's disappointment with Maliki.
Saddam's execution posed a special problem for the British government, given its opposition to the death penalty. The British Foreign Office said it had made repeated approaches to the Iraqi government, making clear its opposition to the execution. Officials had planned a last-minute plea for clemency by the ambassador, Dominic Asquith, to the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and Maliki. But the plan was abandoned. A Foreign Office source confirmed that no final approach to the Iraqi government was made by a senior British diplomat.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, questioned about the prospect of the death penalty in November, proved initially reluctant to denounce it, but eventually did so. On Saturday, the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, reiterated Britain's opposition to the death penalty but welcomed the fact that he had been tried by an Iraqi court. "He has now been held to account." she said.
Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
Selective Service plans "readiness" tests for military draft
By Kasie Hunt, Associated Press Writer
December 22, 2006
href http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/
articles/2006/12/22/selective_service_plans_readiness_
tests_for_military_draft?mode=PFWASHINGTON
(AP) The Selective Service System is making plans to test its draft machinery in case Congress and President Bush need it, even though the White House says it doesn't want to bring back the draft.
The agency is planning a comprehensive test -- not run since 1998 -- of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
Scott Campbell, the service's director for operations and chief information officer, cautioned that the "readiness exercise" does not mean the agency is gearing up to resume the draft.
"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf," Campbell told The Associated Press. "Unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."
Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson prompted speculation about the draft Thursday when he told reporters in New York that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft. Later he issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.
The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that policy has not changed and no proposal to reinstate the draft is being considered.
The "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and its network of appeal boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, Campbell said.
The Selective Service will start planning for the 2009 tests next June or July, although budget cuts could force the agency to cancel them, Campbell said.
President Bush said this week he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Military officials have said the Army and Marine Corps want to add as many as 35,000 more troops.
Recruiting new forces and retaining current troops is more complicated because of the unpopular war in Iraq. In recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.
In remarks to reporters, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels "in the common purpose of serving."
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said such a proposal would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list.Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. Reincorporated in 1980, the Selective Service System maintains a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
Associated Press writers Sara Kugler in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.
2006 The New York Times Company
Showing posts with label draft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label draft. Show all posts
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
We will finally defeat the Blackhawk Down syndrome.
Invading Somalia on the eve of a presidential address.
Curious timing.
The Decider has decided.
Immediately after the first Bush invasion of Iraq, GHWBush said: "we have finally defeated the Vietnam Syndrome".
Then we experienced Blackhawk Down in Somalia.
Will Dubya finally be able to say "we have finally defeated the Blackhawk Down Syndrome"?
It must have stuck in his craw all these years.
The reputation of the Bush dynasty is at stake.
We will win even if we have to kill a million 'collateral damages'.
They're only brown people with inferior religions sitting on our oil.
We'll Nuke 'em back to the stone age like the right wing press says.
(I hope you recognize irony there.)
Monday, (my blogger was down):
The official leak has been made. The public has been sufficiently acclimated to the news and is now in place to listen to the bastard's unplan without blowing their tops.
A surge of a billion tax dollar in aid for a works program for Iraq.
Surging right out of our middle-class losing-jobs losing-pensions losing-medical-care pockets.
The evening that Shock and Awe was launched, we went out to dinner... giving ourselves no chance of being near a video screen. I did not believe in the carnage of the rockets red glare as a spectator sport. We stood on the corner of Franklin and Davison, Flint, Michigan, in front of Angelo's Coney Island and saw, looking in all four directions, the destruction caused by years of globalization and ruling class manipulation.
Potholes, plywooded windows, dark empty streets, abandoned homes, abandoned vehicles, abandoned businesses, dying churches, closing schools, closing shops. The sense of danger, the knowlege that unseen bad people could do a drive by, or jump us in the park or on the street, that people die by violence in that hood so plagued by gang graffiti, and neglected rental property, and poverty.
If we needed to bring a 'freedom agenda' and a billion dollar jobs program and hope to somewhere, why not to Flint, Michigan?
Because we have no oil under our homes?
Because we aren't close to Israel so we have no strategic importance?
Because we are only average Americans in trouble?
Kinda recalls my mind to Hurricane Katrina as well.
Where is the loyal opposition?
A NOTE to those who have been media-farmed to think the first battle of Mogadishu was all the fault of the right side of the coin's favorite whipping boy Clinton...
Wars don't just happen. They are planned many moves in advance just like chess. DUH!
The Bush Administration covertly started setting up Somalia for a regime change and nation building (actions which, during the 2000 presidential campaign, Dubya deplored. However once he was selected in the Supreme Court coup of 2000, spreading a Freedom Agenda became his mantra too. Funny how all that power and influence change a guy.)
Such meglomaniacs, such meddlers, such blood soaked hypocrites.
I copy and paste from Wikipedia:
In September 1991 severe fighting broke out in Mogadishu, which continued in the following months and spread throughout the country, with over 20,000 people killed or injured by the end of the year. These wars led to the destruction of the economy of Somalia which in turn led to starvation in large parts of Somalia. The international community began to send food supplies to halt the starvation, but vast amounts of food were hijacked and brought to local clan leaders, who routinely exchanged it with other countries for weapons. An estimated 80 percent of the food was stolen. These factors led to even more starvation, from which an estimated 300,000 people died, and another 1.5 million people suffered, between 1991 and 1992. In July 1992, after a ceasefire between the opposing clan factions, the United Nations sent 50 military observers to watch the distribution of the food.
Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the George H. W. Bush White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia and reducing reliance on truck convoys. [...] When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S., in December 1992, launched a major coalition operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities, Operation Restore Hope under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with Resolution 794 (1992).
Mission shift to nation-building
A key moment in the operation was when the mission shifted from delivering food supplies to nation-building.On March 3, 1993 the U.N. Secretary-General submitted to the U.N. Security Council his recommendations for effecting the transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. He indicated that since the adoption of Council resolution 794 (1992) in December 1992, the presence and operations of UNITAF had a positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance (UNITAF deployed some 37,000 personnel over forty percent of southern and central Somalia). However, there was still no effective government, police, or national army with the result of serious security threats to UN personnel. To that end, the U.N. Security Council authorized UNOSOM II to establish a secure environment throughout Somalia, to achieve national reconciliation so as to create a democratic state.
Affairs went downward from there...
This is Vietraq, and folks, it was planned like a chess match.
Curious timing.
The Decider has decided.
Immediately after the first Bush invasion of Iraq, GHWBush said: "we have finally defeated the Vietnam Syndrome".
Then we experienced Blackhawk Down in Somalia.
Will Dubya finally be able to say "we have finally defeated the Blackhawk Down Syndrome"?
It must have stuck in his craw all these years.
The reputation of the Bush dynasty is at stake.
We will win even if we have to kill a million 'collateral damages'.
They're only brown people with inferior religions sitting on our oil.
We'll Nuke 'em back to the stone age like the right wing press says.
(I hope you recognize irony there.)
Monday, (my blogger was down):
The official leak has been made. The public has been sufficiently acclimated to the news and is now in place to listen to the bastard's unplan without blowing their tops.
A surge of a billion tax dollar in aid for a works program for Iraq.
Surging right out of our middle-class losing-jobs losing-pensions losing-medical-care pockets.
The evening that Shock and Awe was launched, we went out to dinner... giving ourselves no chance of being near a video screen. I did not believe in the carnage of the rockets red glare as a spectator sport. We stood on the corner of Franklin and Davison, Flint, Michigan, in front of Angelo's Coney Island and saw, looking in all four directions, the destruction caused by years of globalization and ruling class manipulation.
Potholes, plywooded windows, dark empty streets, abandoned homes, abandoned vehicles, abandoned businesses, dying churches, closing schools, closing shops. The sense of danger, the knowlege that unseen bad people could do a drive by, or jump us in the park or on the street, that people die by violence in that hood so plagued by gang graffiti, and neglected rental property, and poverty.
If we needed to bring a 'freedom agenda' and a billion dollar jobs program and hope to somewhere, why not to Flint, Michigan?
Because we have no oil under our homes?
Because we aren't close to Israel so we have no strategic importance?
Because we are only average Americans in trouble?
Kinda recalls my mind to Hurricane Katrina as well.
Where is the loyal opposition?
A NOTE to those who have been media-farmed to think the first battle of Mogadishu was all the fault of the right side of the coin's favorite whipping boy Clinton...
Wars don't just happen. They are planned many moves in advance just like chess. DUH!
The Bush Administration covertly started setting up Somalia for a regime change and nation building (actions which, during the 2000 presidential campaign, Dubya deplored. However once he was selected in the Supreme Court coup of 2000, spreading a Freedom Agenda became his mantra too. Funny how all that power and influence change a guy.)
Such meglomaniacs, such meddlers, such blood soaked hypocrites.
I copy and paste from Wikipedia:
In September 1991 severe fighting broke out in Mogadishu, which continued in the following months and spread throughout the country, with over 20,000 people killed or injured by the end of the year. These wars led to the destruction of the economy of Somalia which in turn led to starvation in large parts of Somalia. The international community began to send food supplies to halt the starvation, but vast amounts of food were hijacked and brought to local clan leaders, who routinely exchanged it with other countries for weapons. An estimated 80 percent of the food was stolen. These factors led to even more starvation, from which an estimated 300,000 people died, and another 1.5 million people suffered, between 1991 and 1992. In July 1992, after a ceasefire between the opposing clan factions, the United Nations sent 50 military observers to watch the distribution of the food.
Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992, when the George H. W. Bush White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia and reducing reliance on truck convoys. [...] When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S., in December 1992, launched a major coalition operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities, Operation Restore Hope under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with Resolution 794 (1992).
Mission shift to nation-building
A key moment in the operation was when the mission shifted from delivering food supplies to nation-building.On March 3, 1993 the U.N. Secretary-General submitted to the U.N. Security Council his recommendations for effecting the transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. He indicated that since the adoption of Council resolution 794 (1992) in December 1992, the presence and operations of UNITAF had a positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance (UNITAF deployed some 37,000 personnel over forty percent of southern and central Somalia). However, there was still no effective government, police, or national army with the result of serious security threats to UN personnel. To that end, the U.N. Security Council authorized UNOSOM II to establish a secure environment throughout Somalia, to achieve national reconciliation so as to create a democratic state.
Affairs went downward from there...
This is Vietraq, and folks, it was planned like a chess match.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Merry Christmas, the October surprise I predicted has arrived on your doorstep
George W. Bush's Last Hurrah.
What does he have to lose, except the world.
Since the election, somehow "the conversation" inside the beltway has changed, hasn't it.
Just maybe, we aren't winning in Iraq.
Maybe we need a "surge".
Maybe we need 20 thousand, no make that 30 thousand more troops in Iraq.
Maybe we need a naval fleet off the shore of Iran.
What did they tell you on November 1st?
We were winning then.
They were setting up Iran, like they did to Iraq, but quietly.
Now the drums are getting louder.
The memory hole is working overtime.
They must think we have no memory or we are too busy with the holidays and our live to pay attention to how they have created this FIASCO.
As soon as you've spent your holiday bonus and loaded up the plastic to the hilt, they'll let you know what the sacrifice will be for 2007.
We need more troops, the military is at the breaking point.
The bastards. The political class think they are the master marketers, don't they.
But of course, Congress is their own best consumer of propaganda. Gates flew through unanimously on the promise that he wasn't Rumsfield.
His 'Iraq is a disaster' has turned into 'we can't lose in Iraq.'
What part of 'get out of Iraq' don't they understand?
Oh well boys, you didn't want good union jobs here in America, you bought the cheap Chinese crap at Walmart, you got hooked by the ruling class' propaganda and focused on gay marriages and the little snowflake fetuses instead of the real world, and when you get drafted, at least you'll have a job. Fodder.
Bush to Discuss Expanding Military
By Associated Press
Wed Dec 20, 4:53 AM
WASHINGTON - President Bush will hold a news conference at 10 a.m. EST. The White House said Bush would open with a 10-minute statement discussing his decision to expand the overall size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long, global struggle against terrorism.
Bush also planned to stress the importance of working in a bipartisan way next year when Democrats take control of Congress heading into the final two years of his administration.
The White House also said Bush would talk about the need to keep the U.S. economy strong.
Bush said Tuesday for the first time that American forces were not winning in Iraq. He also said the military would be expanded to fight a long-term battle against terrorism.
Bush did not say the U.S. was losing the war, which began in March 2003 and has cost the lives of nearly 3,000 troops. Instead, when asked during an interview with The Washington Post whether the war was being won, the president borrowed the phrasing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.
"You know, I think an interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing _ constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said.
However, Bush also acknowledged the threat of sectarian violence, saying that part of the policy review for Iraq the administration has undertaken will deal with how to help the Iraqis provide for their own security.
"And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective," he said.
Two weeks before the November elections, which shifted control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, Bush asserted that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. On Tuesday, he said that response was "an indication of my belief we're going to win."
In other remarks during the Oval Office interview on Tuesday, Bush said he plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, which has been stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces.
The president did not say how many troops might be added, but he said he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the military is stretched too thin to deal with demands of fighting terrorism.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops _ the Army, the Marines," Bush told the Post. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
The White House said Bush's decision about expanding the size of the military was separate from his search for a new approach to the war in Iraq. "This is necessary for the long term obligations in the war on terror," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Bush's comments seemed a stark departure from the views of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon for the last six years until he was replaced Monday by Gates. Rumsfeld had long resisted calls to increase the size of the military, arguing that technological advances and organizational changes could give the Army and Marine Corps the extra capability it needed.
Rumsfeld's critics argue that relatively small-scale but grueling wars possible in the 21st century, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the U.S. facing well-hidden terrorist groups and persistent local insurgencies. Such conflicts would inevitably demand strong, sizable U.S. ground forces to keep such operations going, they say.
Among the chorus of voices saying it is time to bolster the military's size, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said last week that he wants to increase his service beyond its authorized strength of 512,000, though he used no figures. He warned that the Army "will break" without more troops and a heavier use of reserves.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also expressed support for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, saying Sunday that they are "not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform."
Congress would have to approve the money for an increase in the size of the military, and the idea has won support in recent months from many lawmakers of both parties. Lawmakers would also find it attractive to boost the active duty force because that could reduce the reliance on local reserve units, which have been relied on heavily for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Snow acknowledged that Bush is considering sending more troops to Iraq, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash.
Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the Army and Marine Corps even thinner once the surge ended.
They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress.
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from his expected trip to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation.
"I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward."
Bush said his decision to increase the size of the armed forces was in response not just to the war in Iraq but to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the globe.
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., criticized any decision to send more troops to Iraq.
"Instead of changing course for the better, the president's plan for more troops will make matters worse in Iraq _ as many generals agree," Kennedy said in a statement. "We need a political solution that brings these warring factions together and makes Iraq take responsibility for their own future."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
What does he have to lose, except the world.
Since the election, somehow "the conversation" inside the beltway has changed, hasn't it.
Just maybe, we aren't winning in Iraq.
Maybe we need a "surge".
Maybe we need 20 thousand, no make that 30 thousand more troops in Iraq.
Maybe we need a naval fleet off the shore of Iran.
What did they tell you on November 1st?
We were winning then.
They were setting up Iran, like they did to Iraq, but quietly.
Now the drums are getting louder.
The memory hole is working overtime.
They must think we have no memory or we are too busy with the holidays and our live to pay attention to how they have created this FIASCO.
As soon as you've spent your holiday bonus and loaded up the plastic to the hilt, they'll let you know what the sacrifice will be for 2007.
We need more troops, the military is at the breaking point.
The bastards. The political class think they are the master marketers, don't they.
But of course, Congress is their own best consumer of propaganda. Gates flew through unanimously on the promise that he wasn't Rumsfield.
His 'Iraq is a disaster' has turned into 'we can't lose in Iraq.'
What part of 'get out of Iraq' don't they understand?
Oh well boys, you didn't want good union jobs here in America, you bought the cheap Chinese crap at Walmart, you got hooked by the ruling class' propaganda and focused on gay marriages and the little snowflake fetuses instead of the real world, and when you get drafted, at least you'll have a job. Fodder.
Bush to Discuss Expanding Military
By Associated Press
Wed Dec 20, 4:53 AM
WASHINGTON - President Bush will hold a news conference at 10 a.m. EST. The White House said Bush would open with a 10-minute statement discussing his decision to expand the overall size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long, global struggle against terrorism.
Bush also planned to stress the importance of working in a bipartisan way next year when Democrats take control of Congress heading into the final two years of his administration.
The White House also said Bush would talk about the need to keep the U.S. economy strong.
Bush said Tuesday for the first time that American forces were not winning in Iraq. He also said the military would be expanded to fight a long-term battle against terrorism.
Bush did not say the U.S. was losing the war, which began in March 2003 and has cost the lives of nearly 3,000 troops. Instead, when asked during an interview with The Washington Post whether the war was being won, the president borrowed the phrasing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.
"You know, I think an interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing _ constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said.
However, Bush also acknowledged the threat of sectarian violence, saying that part of the policy review for Iraq the administration has undertaken will deal with how to help the Iraqis provide for their own security.
"And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective," he said.
Two weeks before the November elections, which shifted control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, Bush asserted that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. On Tuesday, he said that response was "an indication of my belief we're going to win."
In other remarks during the Oval Office interview on Tuesday, Bush said he plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, which has been stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces.
The president did not say how many troops might be added, but he said he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the military is stretched too thin to deal with demands of fighting terrorism.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops _ the Army, the Marines," Bush told the Post. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
The White House said Bush's decision about expanding the size of the military was separate from his search for a new approach to the war in Iraq. "This is necessary for the long term obligations in the war on terror," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
Bush's comments seemed a stark departure from the views of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon for the last six years until he was replaced Monday by Gates. Rumsfeld had long resisted calls to increase the size of the military, arguing that technological advances and organizational changes could give the Army and Marine Corps the extra capability it needed.
Rumsfeld's critics argue that relatively small-scale but grueling wars possible in the 21st century, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the U.S. facing well-hidden terrorist groups and persistent local insurgencies. Such conflicts would inevitably demand strong, sizable U.S. ground forces to keep such operations going, they say.
Among the chorus of voices saying it is time to bolster the military's size, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said last week that he wants to increase his service beyond its authorized strength of 512,000, though he used no figures. He warned that the Army "will break" without more troops and a heavier use of reserves.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also expressed support for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, saying Sunday that they are "not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform."
Congress would have to approve the money for an increase in the size of the military, and the idea has won support in recent months from many lawmakers of both parties. Lawmakers would also find it attractive to boost the active duty force because that could reduce the reliance on local reserve units, which have been relied on heavily for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Snow acknowledged that Bush is considering sending more troops to Iraq, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash.
Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the Army and Marine Corps even thinner once the surge ended.
They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress.
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from his expected trip to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation.
"I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward."
Bush said his decision to increase the size of the armed forces was in response not just to the war in Iraq but to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the globe.
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., criticized any decision to send more troops to Iraq.
"Instead of changing course for the better, the president's plan for more troops will make matters worse in Iraq _ as many generals agree," Kennedy said in a statement. "We need a political solution that brings these warring factions together and makes Iraq take responsibility for their own future."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
the point where the way left and the way right meet
Discuss this with your brother-in-law over the turkey on Thursday if you dare. I guess it all comes down to "framing."
Funny how when it comes to war and anti-war, true patriots from the far right and true patriots from the far left come to the exact same conclusion: the flag wavin' tax payin' "mythical little guy"* in America is repeatedly getting reamed by the elites.
(Just the rightwingers really don't care if they get reamed as long as they get to wear a uniform to look manly.)
First they spilled your kids' blood (all the while picking your pocket) and when the rape and pillage of Iraq was over, now the media mantra is "shared sacrifice."
I thought we were supposed to go shopping, Bubbie.
(* Texas representative Cornyn's term for us flesh and blood schmucks. I about puked when I heard him say it, uncontested, on the Floor of Congress and vowed to never forget it. This is what the elites think of their fellow Americans. )
***
I nailed it. The October Surprise this year was the post election November Surprise -inside the beltway talk has been ramped up about our options in Vietraq: "go big, go long, go home." Hah.
You all didn't count on this, did you, when you voted to "change" your leadership... you thought we had to "bring the troops home", or "support the troops and win the war", but did you ever dig one layer farther down to figure out just exactly what the hell that media mantra you were repeating means?
Cause you should know Go Big means sending in that extra 20 thou troops, which will fail, thus setting up the "shared sacrifice" drumbeat to ESCALATE for REAL after the Manchurian Candidate McCain or Neocon Jeb is annointed in 2008. GO BIG means WE GO BIG the day after election day 2008, unless we somehow, coincidentally, tin-hattedly, get the New Pearl Harbor we need to ramp up the date.
And you should know Go Long means we ain't abandoning any time forseeable the string of 14 permanent bases- hegemonic- anti-Califate Magino line we are drawing in the Iraqi dust, or the biggest embassy in the world, a VaticanCity- sized fortress with 3-foot thick walls.
Paying a pretty penny, are we, for the price of oil. On your charge card for your grandkids to pay. Won't they bless your memory. GO LONG means you will be paying for a militaristic war economy FOREVER. I thought the rightwingers were opposed to paying for big government. I guess that was a lie.
And you should know, Go Home isn't an option for the Bush Dynasty this time. It's just there like the parsley on the turkey platter. So you'll think the Butterball has something to do with anything. Think Bush serving that plastic turkey to the troops. A photo op, loaded with meaning and signifying nothing.
We, Pat Buchanan and I, knew Bush would get handed the backing he sorely needs to salvage his legacy from both the Rats and the Reptiles.
Yep, yesterday the Love Me I'm a Liberal crowd on Air America was arguing for Charley Rangel's draft resolution. Repeating that stomach turning "shared sacrifice" media mantra.
Randy Rhodes doesn't seem to get that we have been fighting completely ginned-up media-garnished and glamorized wars for corporate interests since the Civil War, or you might say, since the Spanish American War.
There aren't "just" wars, Randy.
And Thom Hartmann, usually a great thinker, was actually arguing with clear-eyed callers for a draft over cutting funding as a way to ending war. Never imagining that we don't need to set up either option as a straw man, we can do BOTH, Thom!
From two weeks ago, (although I think he is clarly naive about our reasons for being in the Ukraine... short version - it's business, Pat, done for the benefit of corporations. The American military is a protection racket.) :
More Troops—or Less Empire
by Patrick J. Buchanan
November 6, 2006 Issue
The American Conservative
"[W]e are stretched too thin and need a larger military," argued The Weekly Standard in a recent editorial entitled "More Troops."
"Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress."
And why do we need more troops?
Because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going badly for lack of U.S. troops, and because, says the Standard, President Bush needs to have the strategic option to put ground forces into "Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, or wherever the next crisis erupts." The Standard wants the U.S. Army increased by 250,000.
Post-election, this issue will be debated in Congress and should provide the occasion for a larger debate on the issue: do we truly need more troops, or do we rather need fewer U.S. commitments to fight in places where no vital interests are imperiled? Is it not time, 15 years after the Cold War's end, to begin dissolving old alliances and shedding commitments dating to a time when a Soviet Empire bestrode Europe and Asia like a colossus?
Case in point: South Korea. Why are 30,000 U.S. troops tied down on that peninsula half a century after the Chinese left North Korea and 15 years after the Soviet Union expired? If the 60 million Koreans, North and South, were raptured up to heaven, how would America be imperiled?
In the Korean War of 1950-53, the United States sent an army of a third of a million men. One thousand U.S. soldiers died every month in Korea, compared to the 1,000 who die each year in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are not going to send another army to fight for South Korea. Nor should we.
The Cold War is over and South Korea, with an economy 40 times the size of the North's, with twice the population and the latest in U.S. weapons, should undertake its own ground defense.
Before plunging into Vietnam, LBJ said, "American boys ought not to be doing the fighting that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." That was a valid argument then. Why not now?
If the United States gave Seoul notice that all U.S. troops would be off the peninsula in a year and we were exercising our right to withdraw from the 1950s mutual security treaty, those U.S. troops could be returned home, and we would find Seoul suddenly far more receptive to Bush's diplomacy than it has heretofore been.
Case in point: NATO, Ukraine, and Georgia. Until the Orange Revolution went sour, these two ex-republics of the USSR were advancing toward membership in NATO. Once in, any conflict between either nation and Russia would bring us in militarily. For the NATO charter reads that an attack against one is an attack against all. Is there a more insane idea floating about right now?
Kiev and Moscow have clashed over the pro-Western orientation of the new government and the Crimean peninsula that is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Khrushchev ceded the peninsula to Ukraine. But eastern Ukraine is Russified in language, culture, and ethnicity, and different from the Orthodox center and Catholic west.
How is the United States strengthened by a commitment to go to war with the world's second nuclear power, should a Russian-Ukrainian collision deteriorate into a shooting war?
Alliances are the transmission belts of war. While alliances can strengthen nations, they carry the risk of dragging their members into unnecessary wars. How would an alliance with Georgia, now in a nasty brawl with Moscow over Russian spies and the breakaway Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, strengthen America? Fifty years ago, Ike refused to risk war with Russia to save the Hungarian Revolution. Now we are going to fight Russia over Georgia?
When the debate over expanding the U.S. Army begins in 2007, there need to be voices raised calling for withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Korea and Central Asia, where they do not belong, and a bottom-up review of all U.S. war guarantees.
This will be denounced as isolationism. But was it isolationism for the Russians to go home from Cuba? Just as we wanted the French, British, Spanish, and, finally, Russians out of our hemisphere, other nations bristle at U.S. troops stationed just over their border.
We have more than enough soldiers to defend the United States and our vital interests and allies. If we will pull up the old trip wires we put down in the Cold War and bring home the troops manning those trip wires, we will also find that, suddenly, we have fewer quarrels and fewer enemies than the administration has managed to make for us.
Funny how when it comes to war and anti-war, true patriots from the far right and true patriots from the far left come to the exact same conclusion: the flag wavin' tax payin' "mythical little guy"* in America is repeatedly getting reamed by the elites.
(Just the rightwingers really don't care if they get reamed as long as they get to wear a uniform to look manly.)
First they spilled your kids' blood (all the while picking your pocket) and when the rape and pillage of Iraq was over, now the media mantra is "shared sacrifice."
I thought we were supposed to go shopping, Bubbie.
(* Texas representative Cornyn's term for us flesh and blood schmucks. I about puked when I heard him say it, uncontested, on the Floor of Congress and vowed to never forget it. This is what the elites think of their fellow Americans. )
***
I nailed it. The October Surprise this year was the post election November Surprise -inside the beltway talk has been ramped up about our options in Vietraq: "go big, go long, go home." Hah.
You all didn't count on this, did you, when you voted to "change" your leadership... you thought we had to "bring the troops home", or "support the troops and win the war", but did you ever dig one layer farther down to figure out just exactly what the hell that media mantra you were repeating means?
Cause you should know Go Big means sending in that extra 20 thou troops, which will fail, thus setting up the "shared sacrifice" drumbeat to ESCALATE for REAL after the Manchurian Candidate McCain or Neocon Jeb is annointed in 2008. GO BIG means WE GO BIG the day after election day 2008, unless we somehow, coincidentally, tin-hattedly, get the New Pearl Harbor we need to ramp up the date.
And you should know Go Long means we ain't abandoning any time forseeable the string of 14 permanent bases- hegemonic- anti-Califate Magino line we are drawing in the Iraqi dust, or the biggest embassy in the world, a VaticanCity- sized fortress with 3-foot thick walls.
Paying a pretty penny, are we, for the price of oil. On your charge card for your grandkids to pay. Won't they bless your memory. GO LONG means you will be paying for a militaristic war economy FOREVER. I thought the rightwingers were opposed to paying for big government. I guess that was a lie.
And you should know, Go Home isn't an option for the Bush Dynasty this time. It's just there like the parsley on the turkey platter. So you'll think the Butterball has something to do with anything. Think Bush serving that plastic turkey to the troops. A photo op, loaded with meaning and signifying nothing.
We, Pat Buchanan and I, knew Bush would get handed the backing he sorely needs to salvage his legacy from both the Rats and the Reptiles.
Yep, yesterday the Love Me I'm a Liberal crowd on Air America was arguing for Charley Rangel's draft resolution. Repeating that stomach turning "shared sacrifice" media mantra.
Randy Rhodes doesn't seem to get that we have been fighting completely ginned-up media-garnished and glamorized wars for corporate interests since the Civil War, or you might say, since the Spanish American War.
There aren't "just" wars, Randy.
And Thom Hartmann, usually a great thinker, was actually arguing with clear-eyed callers for a draft over cutting funding as a way to ending war. Never imagining that we don't need to set up either option as a straw man, we can do BOTH, Thom!
From two weeks ago, (although I think he is clarly naive about our reasons for being in the Ukraine... short version - it's business, Pat, done for the benefit of corporations. The American military is a protection racket.) :
More Troops—or Less Empire
by Patrick J. Buchanan
November 6, 2006 Issue
The American Conservative
"[W]e are stretched too thin and need a larger military," argued The Weekly Standard in a recent editorial entitled "More Troops."
"Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress."
And why do we need more troops?
Because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going badly for lack of U.S. troops, and because, says the Standard, President Bush needs to have the strategic option to put ground forces into "Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Lebanon, or wherever the next crisis erupts." The Standard wants the U.S. Army increased by 250,000.
Post-election, this issue will be debated in Congress and should provide the occasion for a larger debate on the issue: do we truly need more troops, or do we rather need fewer U.S. commitments to fight in places where no vital interests are imperiled? Is it not time, 15 years after the Cold War's end, to begin dissolving old alliances and shedding commitments dating to a time when a Soviet Empire bestrode Europe and Asia like a colossus?
Case in point: South Korea. Why are 30,000 U.S. troops tied down on that peninsula half a century after the Chinese left North Korea and 15 years after the Soviet Union expired? If the 60 million Koreans, North and South, were raptured up to heaven, how would America be imperiled?
In the Korean War of 1950-53, the United States sent an army of a third of a million men. One thousand U.S. soldiers died every month in Korea, compared to the 1,000 who die each year in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are not going to send another army to fight for South Korea. Nor should we.
The Cold War is over and South Korea, with an economy 40 times the size of the North's, with twice the population and the latest in U.S. weapons, should undertake its own ground defense.
Before plunging into Vietnam, LBJ said, "American boys ought not to be doing the fighting that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." That was a valid argument then. Why not now?
If the United States gave Seoul notice that all U.S. troops would be off the peninsula in a year and we were exercising our right to withdraw from the 1950s mutual security treaty, those U.S. troops could be returned home, and we would find Seoul suddenly far more receptive to Bush's diplomacy than it has heretofore been.
Case in point: NATO, Ukraine, and Georgia. Until the Orange Revolution went sour, these two ex-republics of the USSR were advancing toward membership in NATO. Once in, any conflict between either nation and Russia would bring us in militarily. For the NATO charter reads that an attack against one is an attack against all. Is there a more insane idea floating about right now?
Kiev and Moscow have clashed over the pro-Western orientation of the new government and the Crimean peninsula that is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Khrushchev ceded the peninsula to Ukraine. But eastern Ukraine is Russified in language, culture, and ethnicity, and different from the Orthodox center and Catholic west.
How is the United States strengthened by a commitment to go to war with the world's second nuclear power, should a Russian-Ukrainian collision deteriorate into a shooting war?
Alliances are the transmission belts of war. While alliances can strengthen nations, they carry the risk of dragging their members into unnecessary wars. How would an alliance with Georgia, now in a nasty brawl with Moscow over Russian spies and the breakaway Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, strengthen America? Fifty years ago, Ike refused to risk war with Russia to save the Hungarian Revolution. Now we are going to fight Russia over Georgia?
When the debate over expanding the U.S. Army begins in 2007, there need to be voices raised calling for withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Korea and Central Asia, where they do not belong, and a bottom-up review of all U.S. war guarantees.
This will be denounced as isolationism. But was it isolationism for the Russians to go home from Cuba? Just as we wanted the French, British, Spanish, and, finally, Russians out of our hemisphere, other nations bristle at U.S. troops stationed just over their border.
We have more than enough soldiers to defend the United States and our vital interests and allies. If we will pull up the old trip wires we put down in the Cold War and bring home the troops manning those trip wires, we will also find that, suddenly, we have fewer quarrels and fewer enemies than the administration has managed to make for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
