Murtha Wont Be Stopped

On Monday, 2/19/07, a posting on this blog carried the title "Cowards Bad Mouth Murtha". Today, 2/25/07, the WaPo sums up the results of a weeks worth of decorated war hero bashing by the pro-war right with the headline "Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs".

Where have the democrats been these last six days? Why have they refused to defend Murtha if not his plan? OK, so maybe it isn't the best plan on the table. But, it's one with realistic goals and a concrete means of achieving them. Is that what they don't like about it? And even if the democrats are not serious about ending this pointless war, they should leap to the defense of a colleague who has personally supported the troops and the military more than just about anyone else in the country. The fact that they have left one of their own to the wolves should be yet another cause for their shame.

As I understand it, Murtha's plan takes the military's own current standards of readiness regarding rest, training and equipment, and writes them into the budget so that funding to send troops into combat is only available if those troops are rested, trained and equipped properly. Maybe that doesn't solve all the Iraq problems by itself. But, what the hell is wrong with saying we wont send troops who, by the military's own standards, are not ready to go?

Love him or hate him, one thing is certain; he's not giving up. Murtha joined the marines in 1952, volunteered for Vietnam in '66 and retired with the navy distinguished service medal. He has worked tirelessly for the military and veterans throughout his career in Congress (Novak said he was best known as a purveyor of pork). And, he has been calling for de-escalation of the war and re-deployment of the troops since early 2005. When it comes to protecting the troops and America, this guy is a pit bull. Chicken Hawks from both sides of the aisle beware, while he still breathes, he wont let go and he wont cut and run and he wont give up.

Who Cares About Capturing Bin Laden

FORT WORTH, Feb. 23 -- The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

There you go, America. Everything they've told you is a lie. If you want justice for 9/11 rather than the slow bleed of our military in Iraq, then you are un-patriotic and don't support the troops. Welcome to the New American Century - Reichstag = 9/11.

Be Careful, Nancy!

Vice President Cheney today continued his all out war on the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Cheney said, in part:

"If you are going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don't get to just do the fun part of that, that says, well we're going to get out and appeal to your constituents on that basis. You have to be accountable for the results. . . .

"The point I made and I'll make it again is that al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. . . . That if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. . . . If we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it and I meant it."

I feel like there are two main items here to note. First of all, for Cheney to say anyone other than himself and the President needs to be held accountable for the results of their policy is absolutely ludicrous. This is Bush and Cheney's war and just in case anybody forgets that, the Democrats need to be loud and clear and tireless in bringing it up. Do not let them re-frame this.

Secondly, it is obvious that Cheney is going for broke now. He has nothing left to lose. He has no political future. His daughter is gay and the religious right is finally holding him accountable for that. And, I'm sure he's aware that he wont live forever. This is truly a battle to the death for him. That makes him more dangerous than ever.

Brits Validate Al Qaeda Strategy

I don't know why everyone is acting all shocked about the recent announcement that the British will be withdrawing 2100 of their 7000 troops in Iraq this summer despite the US needing 21,500 more to secure Baghdad and Al Anbar. We all knew those tea sipping, crumpet munching, cross-dressing, limey nitwits with their socialism-lite and their little Queen would go all wobbly in the knees at the first sign of trouble. They will be redeploying the remainder of the troops in Iraq to non-combat roles such as training Iraqi forces and patrolling the border. This is said to be a success as the territory in the south which they controlled is now in the hands of Iraqi Police and Military. Unfortunately the Police are entirely under control of the militias and the British have made many unsuccessful attempts to root them out. They recently assaulted and leveled a police station in Basra. That move, not particularly popular with the locals, and the reaction to it gave those snooty Brits the perfect excuse to declare victory and get out. Except they forgot about the Terrorists. They proved they don't have the stomach to finish the fight and somebody might be following them home!

Cowards Bad Mouth Murtha

I'm sure everyone has noticed the growing chorus of criticism coming from the pro-war right of Congressman John Murtha. Novak weighed in today with his alarmist screed "Murtha In Command" which included this gem of a paragraph:

Murtha's plan did not surprise Republicans. They were poised to contend that his proposed amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill would effectively cut off funding for the war, confronting moderate Democrats elected after promising voters they would support the troops. But the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to end debate, which prevented final passage of the nonbinding resolution rejecting the troop surge, would not affect Murtha's plan because appropriations have to be passed and cannot be filibustered. Thus, unless there is an unexpected retreat by Democrats, Murtha will be driving U.S. policy. That is an improbable elevation for a House member best known until now as a purveyor of pork. An ideological moderate (a 65 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and 40 percent from the American Conservative Union in 2006), he became a hero to the left by advocating "redeployment" of troops from Iraq.

But Novakula is is hardly on his own here. Rove/Bush/Cheney seem to be up to their old Scooter Libby tricks and calling on a lot of the same people. Krauthammer and Malkin have both leapt in to denounce Jack Murtha as everything from senile to aiding the enemy. (sound familiar McCain?) So, once again we have a highly decorated, combat wounded veteran - he joined the Marine Corps in 1952 then, in 1966 volunteered for service in Vietnam where he was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry - who is being attacked for not supporting the troops, for undermining the Commander in Chief, for cutting and running. Does this sound like a pattern? Americans, particularly you in uniform, how do these people treat veterans?

Well, if Mr Novak is right, we have a choice before us. We either continue to trust the management of the war to Bush, Cheney and Rove or we turn to someone with some actual military experience. Who would you want in your foxhole?

Tony Snow: Give The Troops What They Want!

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow repeatedly defended the President's strategy in Iraq and called on Congress to pass funding without restrictions to support it.

"What I would say to members of Congress is: Calm down and take a look at what's going on, and ask yourself a simple question: If you support the troops, would you deny them the reinforcements they think are necessary to complete the mission?'"

So, I guess I would have to answer his question with a question; When did the troops start setting the war strategy? And, if the addition of the reinforcements "they think are necessary to complete the mission" results in only temporary reductions in ethnic tensions and violence, will the White House then blame the troops for the mistake?

Or, perhaps, by "troops" Snow was referring to General Petraeus. Congress unanimously confirmed this general knowing that his orders are to implement the same mixture of tactical and strategic elements which have failed repeatedly over the course of the last four years. When, a year from now, it is impossible to sustain these troop levels and the civil conflict surges, will he join the ranks of Generals Casey and Abizaid - relieved of duty then promoted? I have no idea what the Senate was thinking when they cast their votes to confirm Gen Petraeus but again, Petraeus does not set policy.

It is a familiar and, by now, transparent pattern; give your subordinates their orders then claim you are only giving them what they need to complete "their" mission. The White House is doing everything they can to dodge responsibility for the decisions they are making.

I wonder how the troops feel about that.

Malkin's Madness

Actually, that title is a bit misleading. In the aggregate it is hard to argue with Michele Malkin's reporting in today's posting on her blog, Michelemalkin.com/.

The whole idea of supporting the troops by making sure they have the proper equipment and training does sound like a political ploy coming from Hillary Clinton (but what doesn't). And Michele's numbers on actual up-armored vehicles and body armor in the field are probably accurate. The US Army provided the statistics.

So, what I'm wondering is whether Michele supports congressionally mandated standards of readiness such as those proposed by John Murtha. Murtha is one of the strongest supporters of the military in congress and no left-wing, liberal dove. If military readiness is as high as Malkin portrays it, why wouldn't you want increased congressional support for it. Supporting readiness is, by definition, supporting the troops regardless of a particular motive for it.

The only position in this debate which does not support the troops is the one which opposes a resolution supporting the troops and opposes mandating standards of readiness. Really, Michele, logic 101?

North Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament

So I sit down to read the news this morning and this is the AP's top story. I am skeptical but I read on. After all, didn't they just test a bomb a couple of months ago? But, it sounds like a good agreement. I'm wondering how in the hell the Bush administration's State Department managed to get this deal. Of course it was a six party negotiation with all of N. Korea's neighbors which is what the administration wanted and also why the deal sounds like it might work. It seems this is a sound agreement benefiting all and arrived at through true negotiation. Astounding.

And then I get to this;

But already before its adoption, the deal drew strong criticism from John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., who urged President Bush to reject it.
"I am very disturbed by this deal," Bolton told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done."

What the fuck? Didn't we get rid of this guy? Why does he still have any voice in the foreign policy of this country? Why is he quoted by CNN and consulted by Bush. Is he our new Kissinger? Don't we still have the old Kissinger? Maybe he's the new Kiss-ass-inger (thanks barry!). And, if Bush rejects this agreement with the North Koreans, it will set our policy on the peninsula back a decade or more. Of course it was too good to be true! This is the Bush administration, after all.

US On War Path

There has been an enormous response to the military briefing on "evidence" they have compiled "proving" Iran is involved in seventy percent of US casualties in Iraq as repeated by the White House stenographers at the Washington Post. But honestly, people who are going ape-shit to start bombing Iran need to calm down a little bit. Maybe you should give your spiritual leader, Reverend Haggard a call. I'm sure he can hook you up with some gay prostitutes and meth.

Novakula Getting Cozy With Hillary?

I don't know whether Hillary is just asking Democrats to ignore the positions she is taking (or avoiding taking) with the understanding that she is doing it to remain or become electable. The war is the issue, not just for democrats, but for the entire country. The claim that the entire senate looked at the same evidence and voted with the president is obviously and patently false. Our senator, locked in a statistical dead heat with his republican challenger, voted against the authorization of force and the next day saw his lead open up by eight to ten points depending on the poll. Of course, less than a week later, he, his wife and daughter and his key campaign staffers were all dead. Three weeks later the turmoil resulted in the election of Karl Rove's handpicked Bush lapdog, Norm Coleman. Only one fifth of the senate had the courage to vote against the war. But, since that time many, including republicans, have had the courage to admit their mistake. John Kerry, like HRC, tried to have it both ways in order to appear both strong and right. Americans saw through that ploy like a pane of glass and as a result were not inspired to vote for him. But Novak and Hillary are dead wrong (again) if they think democrats will repeat their mistake in 08. They will nominate an unequivocal anti-war candidate and neither McCain or Guilliani will have a snowballs chance in Iraq.
I find it hilarious that Novak (attributing it to the Clinton campaign) believes that homosexuals in Hollywood are organizing against Hillary in order to exact revenge for Bill's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays serving openly in the military. I'm sure a lot of liberal Hollywood homos are really upset about being excluded from serving (as targets for anyone with a gun or a bomb) in Iraq! The editors at the Washington Post obviously haven't the slightest sense of shame at continuing to publish this discredited traitor's idiocy.

Thirty Percenters, A Definition?

The Thirty Percenter is one who continues to believe in the Presidents policy and strategy in Iraq as well as the doctrine of preemption in general. They have a deep but naive faith in the basic goodness of the commander in chief [unless he wants to let the gays in]. They see military force as the primary tool for foreign policy. They believe the UN is not legitimate. Diplomacy is only possible under preconditions favorable to the United States. They even believe that preemptive nuclear war may be justifiable! And, sometimes they call themselves Christians! If we survive, history will look back on this period and refer them as the hardcore lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, their leader has his finger on the button!

Thirty Percenters

Lately I've noticed this term being used to refer to those who still support the Cheney administration's policies toward Iraq. I think this is fabulous. It really captures something about their absolute conviction of their correctness. It also points out that no matter what nonsense they choose to babble, they will now be required to step aside for a few decades while the adults clean up their mess.

Now That's Analysis!

Here's a quote from the declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate. No wonder those guys make the big bucks!

"Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress ... in the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate,"

I feel much safer knowing we have such "darn good intelligence".

Obama Channeling Bill?

In Ruth Marcus's column, today, she compares Bill Clinton with Barrack Obama and contrasts them thusly;

It's hard to name a prominent moment when, like Clinton pushing welfare reform, he (Obama) deviated from party orthodoxy. Sorry, senator, but voting for class action lawsuit reform doesn't cut it. Obama's book features an erudite discussion of the folly, and futility, of resisting globalization -- at which point he summarily announces that he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement nonetheless. His signature divergence from the other leading candidates in the Democratic field comes from the left: He opposed the Iraq war from the start.

Ms Marcus, like many others, attempts to define the Iraq war issue as a matter of being Left or Right. She deliberately confuses the process of Democracy with the process of Free Market Capitalism. The only way in which this war has had anything to with economic policy was when the "post-war" occupation and "reconstruction" was executed by people selected solely on the basis of right wing ideological purity. Their attempts to revolutionize the Iraqi economic system to an utopian free market capitalist model proved disastrous for the Iraqi people and laid bare the greed and corruption at the heart of the neocon agenda. But it says nothing about those who opposed the war or have since come to oppose it.

Self-described "Paleo-cons" from the Goldwater era, led by Pat Buchannon, strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Would Ruth have us believe these folks are a bunch of pinkos and libtards?

John Yoo Says "...Every War Since WWII Has Been Illegal"

John Yoo, current law professor at UC Berkley, author of the famous 2002 torture memo and former Bush administration lawyer, has been cited recently as saying "People think that congress has to say OK to everything. But if that were true, that means every war we've fought since WWII has been illegal." (Well, Duh!) He elaborates that Bush's request for a congressional authorization for the use of force in '02 was purely political. It passed overwhelmingly but was not considered a declaration of war. The resolution was only seen as a way to bring democrats on board. (oh, thank you so much for allowing half the country the opportunity to either oppose the terrorists or support Saddam!)

In other words, they don't believe that there is any necessity, except in the political sense, to seek approval from congress for military action.

If you liked Iraq, You'll love Iran!

Lugar - Just Another Dick

Sen Richard Lugar's Op-Ed in the Washington Post this morning reveals the true depth of the cynicism of the republican party. Faced with ownership of a failed war and chaotic state of affairs in Iraq he and his party have decided to try honesty. They honestly see this thing as a game in which we find ourselves in a tough spot. They acknowledge that securing access to oil and confronting Iran are their primary objectives. They "admit" that if this plan doesn't work, we may have to punt.

Sen Lugar as well as Sens Coleman, Warner, Smith, Snowe etc. had better wake up and get a clue about what they are saying to the American public. It boils down to this; The interests of Big Oil and Military contractors are worth mortgaging the future of our country and the deaths of thousands more of your children. And if it doesn't work, well it's just a game, right?

Democratic Think Tanks

The democratic think tank you are referring to wouldnt happen to be the ISG, would it? The only truly bi-partisan proposal on how to deal with the real disaster for Americas Middle East policy was rejected by Bush in favor of more neocon mischief. Who is playing partisan politics with our national security? James Baker III? Chuck Hegel? Olympia Snowe? Gordon Smith? Dick Lugar? And Maliki is unfit because he is ninety percent Shia? I would venture to say he is one hundred percent Shia. What did you expect when you brought down a secular nationalist government and delivered it into the hands of the long oppressed Shiite Islamic Fundamentalists. Mr Broder should be ashamed that even at this late date he refuses to acknowledge the fundamental errors in waging this preemptive war for regime change in Iraq.

Jeb in '08?

Are you fucking kidding me? SV Date's column in today's Washington Post is a perverted fantasy about both what might have been if it had been Jeb instead of George in 2000 and how great a candidate he would make in '08 or 2012.

*Jeb Bush will turn 54 next month. He has plenty of time. Given his personality and his sense of mission -- not to mention that his father and brother have already succeeded at this -- it seems impossible that Jeb would not run for president. Whether in two or six or 10 years, the United States will face the prospect of yet another Bush in the White House. Americans will then quickly learn what we in Florida already know: This Bush not only combines his father's interest in governing and his brother's permanent campaign but also brings a relentlessness to impose his will that seems entirely his own.*

Yeah, that's exactly what America needs; a permanent campaign, a president who relentlessly imposes his will and HWBush's interest in governing! Though the attention span of Americans could be challenged by a common house fly, the results of the presidencies of both Bush 41 and 43 will remind us for decades if not centuries to come to heed the advice of Jesse Jackson at the 2000 Democratic Convention, *America, keep out of the Bushes!*. If Mr. Date wants to compare dynasties, I would ask who does he think Americans would vote for in a match up between Bill Clinton and GW? I dont really care for Hillary but she would mop the country with Jeb.

Anti-Capitalist Forum Opens In Kenya?

The World Social Forum will be a chance to showcase "Africa and her unbroken history of struggle against foreign domination, colonialism and neocolonialism," according to a statement on the event Web site.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_re_af/world_social_forum

Interesting that AP considers "...struggle against foreign domination, colonialism and neo-colonialism." to be anti-capitalistic. Does that mean they consider foreign domination, colonialism and neo-colonialism to be capitalist?

Should I be shocked?

Reading responses to Kimberly Strossel's column, Unbowed, at www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009556 this morning was a sobering experience. Is it possible that the readers of the WSJ are still one-hundred percent behind Joe Lieberman and President Bush? It's almost perverted the way the republicans fawn over Joe. Why then does he cling the the "Independent Democrat" label? Please, Senator, if you choose to bathe in the blood of innocent people with the neocons, at least have the decency to call yourself a republican.