"Mr. President, the war isn't about you."

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment, 5/14/2008



I saw this earlier tonight just after work. It's a must-see.

Bush: "I'm Deciding to De-Surge the Surge, 'Cuz I'm the Decider"

From CNN: Bush: 5,700 troops to return home by Christmas

President Bush said Thursday night conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved sufficiently to start bringing some U.S. troops home, and urged Americans divided over the war to "come together."

In a televised speech to the nation, Bush said he would reduce U.S. force strength by 5,700 troops by Christmas and, by next July, reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 -- a decrease of roughly 21,500 troops overall.

In other words, for those who haven't been paying much attention, he's essentially saying that he's just going to return us to the numbers we had in there before the "surge". In fact, he may not even reduce troop numbers that much.
As for this flap about "conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved sufficiently", where the hell is he getting that? The GAO concluded that violence is still high and "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months." That doesn't sound like "improved conditions" to me. That sounds more like the same old bullshit.

On Surges and Serpent's Tongues

So I've had several days to reflect on the Petraeus report, the White House's spin on it, what have you.

First, I've been meaning to use this and just couldn't get around to it until today:

People are taking what they want to from Gen. Petraeus' words. The Journal-Gazette ran a huge image the day after saying that his words were analogous the old, tired, already-discarded GOP talking point, "stay the course". Some saw his words as a sign that we may be leaving Iraq sometime. Some just ignored him and continued their own little crusades.
The White House, meanwhile, immediately took the report just as they wanted to, considering it vindication for the failed policies that have led us to our current state.

My biggest beef with all this, though, is probably with MoveOn.org, which attacked Petraeus before he even said anything. It's not so much about the substance of their attack, either, but about the fact that they essentially gave the Republicans ammunition to use against us. Thanks loads, guys, you fucked us over.

Bush can't recall why the Iraqi Military was disbanded.

From the LA Times

"The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen," Bush told biographer Robert Draper in excerpts published in Sunday's New York Times.

Draper pressed Bush to explain why, if he wanted to maintain the army, his chief administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, issued an order in May 2003 disbanding the 400,000-strong army without pay.

"Yeah, I can't remember; I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?' " Bush said, adding: "Again, Hadley's got notes on all this stuff" -- a reference to national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley.

It's great that our supposed Commander-in-Chief knows whats going on with his own administration, to the point - that the 'plans' aren't being followed - and we're finding out years later that the President doesn't even know why.

Good to know, especially with the knowledge that: the Joint Chiefs weren't consulted in the decision.

Or how Bremer: told Bush in advance of his plan to disband the Iraqi military.

"We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddam and the Baathists are finished," Bremer wrote in a letter to the president on May 22, 2003.

After recounting U.S. efforts to remove members of Saddam's Baath Party from civilian agencies, Bremer told Bush that he would "parallel this step with an even more robust measure" to dismantle the Iraq military.

One day later, Bush wrote back a short thank-you letter. "Your leadership is apparent," the president wrote. "You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence." On the same day, Bremer, in Baghdad, had issued the order disbanding the Iraqi military.

Bush did not mention the order to abolish the military, and the letters do not show that he approved the order or even knew much about it. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details.

Furthermore:

Bremer indicated he had been smoldering for months as other administration officials had steadily distanced themselves from his order. "This didn't just pop out of my head," he said by telephone Monday, adding that he had sent a draft of the order to top Pentagon officials and discussed it "several times" with Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.

To me, it sounds like the administration trying to distance itself from what is widely considered a VERY bad decision in regards to the war.

Either that or everyone was drunk at the time. Given the administration, I'm going to go with that.

Bush announces possibility of troop withdrawal!

From the New York Times: Bush, in Iraq, Says Troop Reduction Is Possible

President Bush made a surprise eight-hour visit to Iraq on Monday, emphasizing security gains, sectarian reconciliation and the possibility of a troop withdrawal, thus embracing and pre-empting this month’s crucial Congressional hearings on his Iraq strategy.

Y'hear that?! He actually said a troop withdrawal is possible!

Oh, except he didn't give any indication of how many would be withdrawn.

Or when.

And his circumstances are the same vague "we'll stand down when they stand up" crap they've been saying the whole time.

Huh. Maybe it's just another way of saying that he wants us to be there forever, or at least until someone else takes office.

Ah well, sorry to get your hopes up.

Cheney: "Facts be damned"

From MSNBC: Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

You know, he must be desperate to sell this war to the 30% if he's going to go against the facts that blatantly. Worse yet, he doesn't assert these lies in the real media, where there's even the slightest chance he might be told how much of a lying sack he is, just on right-wing shitholes like Flush Limpballs' show. The sad part? His "boss", Dubya, has already said that the Saddam-AQ link was bullshit.

Oh, and to steal a bit from Craig: You can hear Limbaugh's show locally on 1190 AM WOWO, Fort Wayne's home for deranged far-right garbage.

Pence: "Downtown Baghdad == Indiana"

From IndyStar.com: Pence likens Baghdad market to 1 in Indiana

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., traveling Sunday in Iraq's capital with three other GOP members of Congress, compared a shopping area there to a "normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."

Yeah, because when I go down the street, I need a detachment of military guards to escort me:

Pence, speaking after a heavily guarded hourlong walk through the newly fortified market, echoed comments made by U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and others that the capital was getting safer.
"I, too, find myself leaving my day at the market in Baghdad with a new sense of cautious optimism that freedom might just work for these people," Pence said during a news conference inside the fortified Green Zone.

First, you gotta be amazed at the kind of denialism these people cling to. "It's safer! It's just like back home!" This dementia persists despite stories like these coming out of Iraq every damn day. (Of course, that's only because the "liberal media" "only reports the bad news".) Second you also gotta marvel at the condescension in that statement: "freedom might just work for these people". "These people", like they're barely even human, like they're some concept rather than human beings. And this man is supposed to represent us?

Souder Hates the Troops

From Fort Wayne Left: Congressman Mark Souder Votes Against Our Troops

Indiana Republican Congressman Mark Souder likes to think he supports our troops in this war. He also seems to hedge towards wanting the war to end without causing complete chaos. He had a golden opportunity to address BOTH of these issues in today's House vote on the Iraqi Supplemental bill and HE FAILED MISERABLY. He failed the veterans in this country. He failed our current military personnel and their families. His vote today was flat out inexcusable and something the people of this district will not forget.

So what did he vote against?

You really must see this post. It's a scathing indictment of Souder for doing exactly what any good person would never do.

Best of all, Jeff's absolutely right about this. Souder's biggest concern isn't about our troops, or about our children, or anything that really matters. No, his concern is about districts that aren't his own and the Mary Jane.

All I can say is, don't blame me, I voted for Hayhurst.

Saddam sentenced to hang

From CNN.com: Iraqis react with joy, anger to Hussein death sentence

Saddam Hussein is being sentenced to hang for his crimes. I didn't think anyone did that anymore.

It's not that I'm not happy at this - this is one of the few people I think REALLY needs to die - but it's kinda odd this happens only two days before the elections, hmm?

Besides, if Saddam can be sentenced to hang for being responsible for the deaths of 200-300 thousand Iraqis over twenty years, one wonders how our leaders and troops could be held culpable for killing over 600,000 in about three.

Let's hope we're not next. And let's hope that Saddam's loyalists don't come after us next, either. That's about the last goddamn thing we need.

Another sad milestone.

From Huffington Post via Yahoo!News: RJ Eskow: DARK MILESTONE: More Americans Have Now Died In Iraq Than Died On 9/11

While President Bush and other Republican politicians spent the day exploiting the memory of those we lost five years ago, the nation overlooked a grim milestone: More Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Iraq didn't attack us on that day, and our misguided policy there has now taken more American lives than Al Qaeda.

I wondered what I'd say on the day this happened. I knew it would come, and I wondered what would be the right thing to say.

All I can say is, why? Why are so many Americans not coming home? Why are so many families without members? Why are so many lives being lost for nothing?

I'd cry, but I can't. I don't want to. It won't help anything.

We need resolve. We need action. We need to get out of there.

Maybe we will.

Hopefully.

Dubya: "9/11 != Iraq"

White House Press Conference

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

Y'hear that, wingnuts? He admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So you can stop trying to push that lie, hear? Or are you going to ignore this as "flip-flopping" and keep lying? Geez, we already figured that one out - it only took him, what, about 5 years to catch on to the fact that nobody but the total nutballs believed him?

And yet, even when he tells the truth, he has to lie (see the bold sections of the quote). Note that, even though he admit there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, he STILL conflates it (the italicized part).

Still, this offers me a little hope. Can't speak for y'all, though.

The Lips of the Media and Where They're Glued

I'm given little choice in watching CNN. It's on the TV in the lobby at work. It's either that, or I sit there and worry about work constantly.

Anyway, I've seen some dumb shit on there. Worst of all was yesterday, when I sat there and watched the liar Cheney continue his lies, belligerence, and conflation. Several times, he conflated 9/11 and Iraq, and the reporter, like everyone else in the ass-kissing press, didn't say word one about it.

I'm not surprised. Ever since the "killing" of al-Zarqawi, the media's been kissing Bush's ass all day, every day. It's the same shit they pulled in '04 - all of a sudden, the scandals disappear, and we have all these "victories" for these shameless liars. And when people start seeing through that, how much ya wanna bet they start up the "fear/smear/queer" machine again?

Party of ideas, my ass!

Political news in brief, 6/9/2006

Ann C**ter's new book is out. And once again, the right-wing media machine is giving her time to spew her hatred of everything that's not just like her. She's getting decimated by lots of folks, even Bill O'Reilly, and she's just not stopping. I think it's time that someone finally arrest her for her frauds - the voting fraud she committed, and the fact that she's passed herself off as a woman for years.

Al-Zarqawi supposedly dead. Isn't this the third time we've killed him so far? And honestly, how is it we drop 500 lb. bombs on a man and he's totally intact. They gotta scrape our soldiers off the sides of their tanks with spatulas when they get blown up, and this guy's intact? Either something's fishy, or that was one well-built building and it was the collapse (or possibly suffocation) that actually killed him. Just a thought.

Senate votes down the repeal of the estate tax and the Homobigotry Bill. Hey, whaddya know, there's some folks out there with their heads on straight!

The House Republicans voted to destroy net neutrality. Surprise. Hope you like your favorite small sites to run like molasses. Tell your Senators to vote against the bill!

I think that should cover it.

Bush Blames Saddam for Iraq Instability

From ABC News: Bush Blames Saddam for Iraq Instability

WASHINGTON Mar 29, 2006 (AP)— President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.

In his third speech this month to bolster public support for the war, Bush worked to counter critics who say the U.S. presence in the wartorn nation is fueling the insurgency. Bush said that Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep tensions persist to this day.

"The enemies of a free Iraq are employing the same tactics Saddam used, killing and terrorizing the Iraqi people in an effort to foment sectarian division," Bush said.

Well, we can add "Saddam" to the chant of Bushiemort and his Truth Eaters: "9/11 9/11 9/11 terror terror terror Saddam Saddam Saddam".

Gee, weren't they saying not too long ago that Iraqis hated Saddam and wanted him gone? Weren't they saying that getting rid of him would fix all the problems?

And they called Kerry a flip-flopper...

A few snippets from pResident Bunnypants' speech today.

From CNN.com: Transcript of President Bush's Ohio speech


The following bits and pieces are parts I thought needed some clarification.

"Let America, their families and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life."

Translation from Bushese: "Let's be proud of the fact that I got poor folks to help me make more oil money!"

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11, 2001, those who blew up the commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali or workers in Riyadh or guests at a wedding in Amman.

GOD DAMN IT HE'S DOING IT AGAIN! How many times must he and the rest of the nutjobs be told this: THERE IS NO GODDAMN FUCKING LINK BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ! YES, THAT INCLUDES THE INSURGENTS! I wonder how long it'll be before the wingnut talking heads start repeating that garbage... again?

In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sew anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated.

Freedom will prevail in Iraq. Freedom will prevail in the Middle East.

Y'hear that, folks? He says we're fucked!

There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

Which is why we're basically opening our ports and such to the folks who harbored the 9/11 conspirators. Thank Shigeru that fell through.

And about "more days of sacrifice and tough fighting": Whatever happened to "mission accomplished"? Didn't we see Bunnypants on that aircraft carrier telling us that the major fighting was over? Didn't we see him with his stuffed codpiece and the flightsuit he's only worn a couple times despite being in the Air National Guard (though he DID dodge his duty) saying that we had won?

LIAR!

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission.

If that's the case, then why the fuck are we building permanent bases in Iraq? Oh, right, because he knows that's a goddamn lie!

The Hussein Defense

From The Blogging of the President: The Hussein Defense

Saddam Hussein's defense against his indictment by an ad hoc Iraqi tribunal is simply that has the head of the state he had unlimited power to defend the state. That enemies of the state did not have legal protection, and therefore he cannot be charged for what he did during that time.

Does that sound like anyone we know? Does it sound like the ideas of someone we might have heard about recently?

But remember, that kind of comparison is wrong and evil and is uncalled for, yet we can't go one day without another right-wing hack regurgitating the talking points trying to desperately associate the left to terrorists.