Isn’t it amazing ....
Frankly at this point it isn't.;-) Its completely predictable.
None the less you still need to continue to point this out in the way you do. Its important.
Posted by soccerdad at July 18, 2007 08:08 AMsoccerdad, send me a note offline as I need to get your new email address.
Thanks.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 18, 2007 08:14 AMIsn't it amazing. The Speaker of the whole House and the Majority Leader of the Senate were caught saying to our president, urging him to "listen to the generals". Then when those "real" generals speak, ignoring them for these "retired" generals. Those actually there are testifying to deaf ears and these armchair types are given the podium. Why have them come all the way to DC to speak and not listen to them. General Pace, remember him, the Admin. seems to have "fired" him. He's out there in Time this week stating things have changed dramaticly since his last visit. You giving him ANY credence? I think not, not what y'all want to hear. He's got little reason to be at all beholding to this admin, yet he states things really are better.
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 08:29 AMPeter, when you replace the generals who were against the surge with generals who toe the party line, of course you will get a lot of "listen to the generals" talk from the White House.
Unfortunately the military has squandered its credibility in Iraq, as Petraeus is nothing more than a pitchman selling White House soap. If you want proof that Bush has politicized the military operation inside Iraq, our new Brigadier General Bergner, formerly from White House duty, is all the proof you need.
The commander in chief is entitled to stack the ranks with pliant generals. But as a result, there is no independent thinking coming from Central Command nor should much credibility be ascribed to them. If they want to run their forces through the meatgrinder and destroy operational readiness for a decade, they can share the blame and historical condemnation with their commander in chief.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 18, 2007 08:45 AMWhat steve writes in this post is accurate, but I think it should be emphasized that the NIE looks to be mostly talking about the umbrella organization "Al qaeda in Pakistan" continuing to be the main threat against the "Homeland" (God, what an odious Rightist word), not "al qaeda in Iraq", which is judged as the most prominent "affiliate" of he parent group---and what's that "judgment" of affiliation actually based on?
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2007 08:45 AMThe Army and the Marine Corps does share the blame for this utter fiasco, and they will be held accountable by history as appalling lying toadies, sacrificing their own troops to political allegiance and expediency.
I spent all of my life until 2002 hearing and seeing American military men proclaim we would never get stuck in another Vietnam without a mission. The biggest brayer of all was Collin Powell and that wet noodle doctrine of his.
They were lying. They threw all their allegiance behind republicans 'cause they got them all these toys and promised they would be used. Glory, career, justice, flip that war switch, baby.
They bit and are much felons as Bush and Cheney. Don't look at me, man, they are the ones that said so boldly we would never get stuck like this, yet they just went out and did it. With the lives of our people and the Iraqis. They are eternally condemned for it, oh yes.
Posted by paradox at July 18, 2007 08:58 AMAnd as if on cue, the Pentagon announces a senior Al Qaeda in Iraq leader was captured...
Not "as if," it was this way.
Just like the infamous pictures of Saddam Hussein being pulled from the hole in ground with date palms heavy with rip dates behind the U.S. soldiers.
The Bush junta claimed it was December.
The Middle East laughed at Bush and laughed at the USA because everyone in the Middle East knows date palms are bare by December. Suggesting Saddam was actually captured in August or September.
Posted by Christopher at July 18, 2007 09:17 AMPeter, when you replace the generals who were against the surge with generals who toe the party line, of course you will get a lot of "listen to the generals" talk from the White House.
Peter is right.
"George McClellan" circa 1862.
Democratic leadership is an absolute embarrassment.
Maybe you can run a McClellan relative for 2008?
Worked real well in 1864.
Posted by jj at July 18, 2007 09:27 AMIs ...
John Batiste available, would he run?
Is he related?
Posted by jj at July 18, 2007 09:39 AMIt's all a sham and political theatre. Bush will continue to fight the "infidels" with his Crusade until January 20, 2009. Mark it. They only question before us now is what will happen after that day.
Posted by T2 at July 18, 2007 09:42 AM81 to 0, General Petraeus was approved by the more than bi-partisan Senate for THIS mission in Iraq. No votes against him, NONE! The urging came from the Democratic leadership in January not the WH, Steve.
Is Pace being pliant now even after his "firing"?
McClellan in 1862, Democrats in 1864, just more defeatest attitudes from the leadership now. What America would look like had Democrats won in 1864? What a saving grace Republican President Lincoln was.
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 09:43 AMAssociated Press has the words that matter to Americans:
"Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq". Now everyone can see who who is scared of Big Bad George. GI's continue to die because of Republicans.
That's right folks, this is the gold standard for right wing analysis: Bush is Lincoln, Petraeus is Grant, and Baptiste et. al are all McClellan.
So Peter and jj, what does that make Shinseki, Casey, and Abizaid?
Posted by Steve Soto at July 18, 2007 09:58 AMBy the way jj and Peter, if Iraq truly equates in your minds to our civil war, and if therefore the existence of our country is at stake, when do both of you enlist and go to Baghdad to fight for our survival alongside Grant, . . . oops, I mean Petraeus, against the South, . . . oops, I mean the Iraqis themselves?
Posted by Steve Soto at July 18, 2007 10:03 AMHere is the message of the NIE: After 9/11, Bush was charged with eliminating al Qaeda, and establishing procedures that would protect this nation from similar threats. He has had six years, and billions of dollars, and he has failed miserably!!
It boggles the mind that the White House sees this document as supporting it. Rightly understood, it should be evidence in an impeachment. Since, sadly, Bush is too shameless to resign.
Why, if fighting al Qaeda has been job #1, is there even an al Qaeda to argue about, much less an Iraqi namesake? Why?
Posted by biggerbox at July 18, 2007 10:04 AMI seem to remember why Senator-elect Sherod Brown said Democrats were sent to DC to fix. Iraq was one of ten things he mentioned. Where are the other nine? Nothing done for the people, just more politics for Democrats on Iraq. Americans are watching, all this energy for only one topic and no work gets done on education, ethics and earmark reform, social security, healthcare, nothing!
The people's business is more than just the war in Iraq. Let's see these senators spend an overnighter for healthcare or any other issue the people care for. 52 to 47, is that right. I thought GOP was crumbling. Doesn't seem like anything was furthered by this theater.
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 10:06 AMBy the way jj and Peter, if Iraq truly equates in your minds to our civil war, and if therefore the existence of our country is at stake, when do both of you enlist and go to Baghdad to fight for our survival alongside Grant, . . . oops, I mean Petraeus, against the South, . . . oops, I mean the Iraqis themselves?
Posted by Steve Soto at July 18, 2007 10:03 AM
Been there and done that-little old and blues won't fit the same.
My son is carrying the torch now.
Nice try though,
Posted by jj at July 18, 2007 10:17 AMWho was the other Dem senator that voted against withdrawal. I'm sure Loserman voted against(I know he is an independent).
Posted by JohnT at July 18, 2007 10:28 AM"My son is carrying the torch now."
Sure he is.
Posted by at July 18, 2007 10:42 AMIt was Reid and was for procedural reasons so he can bring it back up later.
Posted by JohnT at July 18, 2007 10:43 AMJohn T it was none other than Majority Leader Harry Reid. Seems it's some sort of procedure vote. He then castigates the GOP! What a joke this do nothing Congress is. The Majority Leader didn't seem to pull the overnighter himself...was absent much of the time.
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 10:45 AMMy son is carrying the torch now.
No doubt serving in "other ways".
...and no work gets done on education, ethics and earmark reform, social security, healthcare, nothing!
Very republi-con of them. What many of us are doing at the grassroots level is trying to find and support replacements for the DINOs. It's completely different than you guys Sieg Heiling the president gasman.
At least 16 Americans dead last week. How much have you heard of these people? Not much. Things are going well in Eye-raq, so no need to focus on death and the like, eh? Nothing like a little zenophobia and bed-wetting over Al Qaeda to make your day go well...all in complete ignorance and disregarding the actualities in the Middle East.
Posted by phidipides at July 18, 2007 10:46 AMpetey, hon, might want to check John T's post before you spew anymore nonsense. Reid had to vote nay so that he could bring it back up later. what a twit you are sometimes. ok, all the time.
Posted by ann at July 18, 2007 11:26 AMI can't figure out if peter needs to ratchet down the medication, or up the dosage. Gems like this:
I seem to remember why Senator-elect Sherod Brown said Democrats were sent to DC to fix. Iraq was one of ten things he mentioned. Where are the other nine? Nothing done for the people, just more politics for Democrats on Iraq. Americans are watching, all this energy for only one topic and no work gets done on education, ethics and earmark reform, social security, healthcare, nothing!
after the Empty Flightsuit was supposedly installed as a 'uniter, not a divider' and was going to 'fix the bipartisan bickering in DC'. And after Republican'ts have engaged in nothing but obstructionist posturing since they got sent a clear message in November 2006. Gee, I wonder why none of the important business of the government is being taken care of? Isn't it amazing how Republican'ts can obstruct the will of the people, and claim, with a straight face, that it's all the Democrats' fault?
Funny how Republican'ts seem to be missing the irony and the hypocrisy gene these days.
Posted by (: Tom :) at July 18, 2007 11:26 AMJust so peter, jj and the other furr balls hacked-up by the republi-con party won't be behind the 8 Ball of republi-con sentiment, conservatives are starting to call Bush absolutely back-biting fucking nuts. I could have said psychotic, but I don't want you mankey republi-con gits thinking Miss Cleo is involved.
Conservative-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions Bush's 'Mental Stability'
What next? Conservative papers telling republi-con supporters they are traitors to the American Constitution? That truth could hurt someone's feelings.
Posted by phidipides at July 18, 2007 11:40 AMIsn't it remarkable how our corporate press can't seem to identify a Repub filibuster on the Iraq withdrawal bill as, well, a filibuster.
But when the Repub language of the day was "Call it a filibuster!" (remember the judges and the nuclear option?), well then ALL cable news and media outlets called it a filibuster. Interesting.
Now, the ordinary BushAmerican couldn't even tell that the Repubs blocked, obstructed and prevented a vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Your lib'rul media!
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2007 11:47 AMOne thing we know for sure, GOoPer talking points disseminator and red-nose-wearing Konservative Klown peter will never be re-examining any of HIS views on anything, no matter what disasters befall the nation.
What's the psychological motivation there---identification with a "team", something "bigger than him"? Simple love for authoritarianism and desire to be "protected" by a supreme leader? Or simple mental illness? Who can say?
Posted by euzoius at July 18, 2007 11:55 AMHappy 89th Birthday Nelson Mandela!
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 12:22 PMHappy 89th Birthday Nelson Mandela!
How ludicrous. Mandela stands for everything you don't.
Posted by Judith at July 18, 2007 02:21 PMHow can wishing someone a 'happy birthday' be "ludicrous"? I never implied anything other than a good wish. Judith, get some balance. GEE!
Congress's Zogby poll has down to 14%, 83% fair to poor. Incumbants better do the people's business. There are lots of things on the table. Many called the 109th Congress a joke. The 110th is passing that one by far. People are dying all over America and this Congress is playing drama with cots. Education, social security, healthcare no where to be seen by these jokers. They enjoy their healthcare while 38 million are without.
Congress is always better at stopping things from happening than doing anything.
Posted by peter at July 18, 2007 03:34 PMJust like the infamous pictures of Saddam Hussein being pulled from the hole in ground with date palms heavy with rip dates behind the U.S. soldiers.
The dates in the pictures were not ripe. Ripe dates are brown, not yellow or orange. They are yellow/orange in an unripened state. A very logical explaination for the dates in the pictures is that the dates failed to pollinate and therefore remained unripened on the tree to rot. From what I understand the area where Saddam was found was an orange grove, not a date grove. A solitary date tree likely needs to be artificially pollinated. Doubtful anyone was hanging around Saddam's hiding place artificially pollinating a date tree in the summer of 2003.
Posted by snark at July 18, 2007 04:31 PMNinety-five percent of the membership of Al Qaeda in Iraq is Iraqi, not foreign fighters being brought in by Al Qaeda.
This is an out and out lie. I"ve been in Iraq, my brother in law led the detachment that tore down Sadaam's statue. The vast majority of al-Qeda fighters in Iraq are foreigners.
And as if on cue, the Pentagon announces a senior Al Qaeda in Iraq leader was captured, two weeks ago, who is telling the Pentagon that contrary to what the intelligence community is saying, Al Qaeda controls Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Not sure what the point is here. Al Qaeda controls Al Qadea?
Isn’t it amazing that the NIE says Al Qaeda has regrouped in a safe haven in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, when it was Bush's own administration that encouraged Pervez Musharraf to back off of the Taliban and Al Qaeda with truces last September?
The truce wasn't with the Taliban. The truce was with tribal leaders in the tribal areas to join in fighting the Taliban. You don't know much about this part of the world if you think that President Bush has ANY way to influence what goes on there. The tribes in Waziristan, the federally administered tribal areas and the northwest territory are going to do what they please no matter what the government of Pakistan or the United States might desire. Ben Laden and what was left of the Taliban after the US military destroyed most of it escaped into this area soon after the invasion of Afghanistan. Why this happened is a comedy of errors, it would be funny if the results hadn't been so disastrous. But, there is no way to influence events in this area. Unless the tribal leaders decide themselves to kick the Taliban and al-Qaeda out of their areas, they aren't going anywhere. So, stop worrying about what Bush wanted or didn't want is totally irrelevent.
You can also stop blaming the President for not "going in and getting Ben Laden". Unless you are prepared to go to war with 25 million fanatical tribesmen who have never lost a military campaign in 3,000 years, having beaten such notables as Assyria, Babylonia, Media, Persia, Greece, the Mongols, various Indian rulers (from India, not American Indian), the British twice...I probably left out a few, but you get the point, unless you are prepared to go to war with these people, you aren't going to "go in and get" anybody who lives in that area.
Even though Bush encouraged the truces, that didn’t stop the New York Times today from saying that the Bush Administration “reluctantly endorsed” the failed truces, thereby adopting the White House spin once again. Who cares what the Treason Times says? Whether Bush endorsed or didn't endorse truces with the tribal leaders makes absolutely no difference, they do what they want. You don't seem to understand. The western part of Pakistan is a defacto independent nation. The Pakistanis cannot influence events there. The Pakistani military sends troops in that area only with the permission of the tribal rulers, they would be mincemeat in about five minutes without that permission.
It is no secret where Ben Laden is. With the kind of bounties that are on his head, many people have gone into Waziristan to collect. None of them came back. You can guess what happened to them.
Curious
Posted by curious at July 19, 2007 03:20 AM