So glad to know that Judith Miller initiates decisions on how the Occupation should be run. Good for you Judy.
We all have known from the beginning that Petraeus will give the speech that has been prepared for him by the office of Cheney & Co. He will say that the "surge" is working, and that all we need is a few more troops to complete the "surge" to bring home a win and save "The Homeland" from terrorists. To expect anything else is to live in fantasyland.
My question Dems, then what?
Posted by Judith at July 19, 2007 09:39 AMcorrect Mary. Bush and Cheney select underlings based on one sole factor: will they do or say exactly what they are told to do or say.
Anyone expecting Petraeus to deviate from the Bush "stay the course, give me more time and money and troops" line will be sorely disappointed. Anyone waiting for Septemeber hoping that 17 Republican Senators will deviate from Bush will also be sorely disappointed. We are in Iraq for the duration of the Bush presidency.
Tweety Turd told Judy Kneepads on Hardball that she was a "real hero" and could "really keep a secret". WTF???
I thought his crusade was to get to the bottom of who lied us into the war, and he's kissing the ass of one of the main culprits?
He is either really stupid or Judy HAS something on the brave Peace Corp veteran.
I hope Sylvester swallows the bastard.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 19, 2007 09:44 AMWell, there is no answer to Sullivan's question and Petraeus is guilty as charged: a partisan Repub general.
That Gen Pet was a factionalist advocating within the army for a more brutal occupation was known for years, and was the reason he was selected by Deadeye to run the escalation. Like all of these GOoPers, Gen Pet is a terrible politician and a divisive force. And it's worse that he gets to portray himself as the simple soldier, serving Murica.
At best, he's succeeded in having the sunni insurgents turn on "al qaeda in iraq", but I think even that is over-optimistic spin. In any event, he's strengthened the sunni opponents of the shi'ite government over the long haul, and armed opponents of the American occupation. And turned the Iraqi "security forces" into a side show, more dependent than ever on militias.
In short, Gen Pet is tying the hands of the next president into permanent occupation, just as he was instructed to do and as he agrees with, no doubt. It's our nation's "destiny", as the religious fanatic Nero declared to his Repub buddies recently.
Posted by euzoius at July 19, 2007 09:49 AMMary great reminder on the Judith Miller bit....I had always wonder about Petraeus' objectivity. I wasn't quite sure if he may be blinded by his own hubris and stubborn arrogance in spite of the reality or if he was a Bush/Cheney true believer. Perhaps it is a bit of both, but now I am thinking the Bush/Cheney ideology is more of a factor in his judgements and decisions than I thought earlier.
Posted by emal at July 19, 2007 09:53 AMReports on the internet suggest that Gen. Petraeus is willing to bend to the pressure from the White House because he willing to do anything for his own career.
I wonder when will Admiral Fallon be replaced by someone who is willing to attack Iran ??
Posted by Willy at July 19, 2007 10:59 AMBush is expected to ask for an additional $120 billion in September for his war in Iraq regardless of what is contained in Petraeus' report. No doubt the 110th Congress will scream and shout and stomp their feet but they will approve Bush's request for the good of the troops.
Posted by Christopher at July 19, 2007 11:08 AMUnder new rules announced by the Mad King, idiot son of George, I suggest you all say that Petraeus is doing a stunning job in Iraq, and that he is a darn nice fellow to boot! No stability in Iraq threatened here, no Siree!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-17-executive-order_N.htm
phidipides,
Did you see where the judge dismissed Valerie Plame's case against the White House?
Like I keep saying: the Bush administration is now unstoppable.
Posted by Christopher at July 19, 2007 12:18 PM"If I were eager to maintain a semblance of military independence from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans, I wouldn't go on the Hugh Hewitt show, would you?"
The General also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, and on the NPR radio show....as well as being quoted in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune...and just about any other media outlet.
Mr. Sullivan seems to be terribly one-sided on this.
Posted by And Bagley Was A Friend Of Mine at July 19, 2007 12:22 PM"Mr. Sullivan seems to be terribly one-sided on this."
And he is guilty of what many others are; that being deciding ahead of time what the outcome is and sticking to it regardless of facts.
Posted by Blandly Urbane at July 19, 2007 01:28 PMThe Plame case was going nowhere period.
Also; Penn, Schoen & Berland said former vice president Mitchell E. Markel dropped his suit against the firm and its founder, Mark Penn, who is strategist and pollster to the Democratic presidential candidate. A separate suit that the firm had filed a week earlier against Markel and Michael J. Berland, another associate who once polled for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was also dismissed and a settlement was reached.
More on the "listen to the general's" line. 7 of 6 seemed to link General Odiero(sp) to generals telling this admin things that it doesn't want to hear. Are Democrats going to do the same after his comments today? He seemed down right positive on our chances to improve the situation in Iraq. Did you hear him? Things ARE getting better. Gen Petraeus is overcoming Democratic opposition and antiwar opposition and gaining a positive outcome in Iraq. Our soldiers there are fearful of Democratic opposition getting in the way of their work there. They feel so close and would hate to sacrifice the hard work they've done just to placate the antiwar types.
Seems the Marines in Anbar are being extended for another month. The units there will be there thru November. The CO there must like his mix of soldiers right now.
How come Democrats are ending whistle blower protections?
The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.
In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.
Union officials have publicly stated that they believe many of OLMS's requirements are burdensome and unnecessary. Since unions helped elect the current Congress, they are now seeking action on their agenda, which ranges from holding fewer secret ballot elections to cutting back on the oversight that is at the heart of the 1959 union "bill of rights" that JFK championed.
Sen. John Kennedy wrote the "bill of rights" for unions. They provided oversight, and voting protections like the secret ballot. Today's unions want to be able to lean on those not voting with them. Seems unions today are "you're either with us or against us" too. No wonder their numbers are decreasing all the time.
Seems also that our president's approval numbers are going up as Congress' goes down. Still not great but when you look at Congress he's a head and shoulders above them. Do the people's business. Can't seem to get Iraq done. Fine, go on to the next issue. All we read is Iraq war votes and nothing else. Where's the beef?
Posted by peter at July 19, 2007 01:54 PM"We are in Iraq for the duration of the Bush presidency."
You are in Iraq until the American people rise up en masse, or the POI's (Pissed Off Iraqis) finally make your stay there sufficiently miserable that you head for the embassy roof.
Has anyone actually READ the Levin-Reid so-called "withdrawal" amendment that everyone was so excited about? If so did you UNDERSTAND it? I did, and if that is withdrawal, I would hate to see what settling in for a long stay looks like.
Check it out here. This is nothing more than heading toward the same imperialist goal by slightly altering the route.
Posted by Shirin at July 19, 2007 02:21 PMShirin, no one was really excited about the amendment itself; they were glad to see the Dems force the GOP to show their pattern of obstruction in Congress, instead of letting them get away with pretending the Dems were the ones not getting anything done. Of course the amendment won't stop the occupation; no single piece of legislation will do it.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 19, 2007 02:31 PM"he's succeeded in having the sunni insurgents turn on "al qaeda in iraq", but I think even that is over-optimistic spin."
It is definitely spin. There was from the beginning very little love lost between the so-called "Sunni insurgents" (more correctly known as resistance), and the Al Qa`eda knock-off in Iraq, and there was fighting between them from the beginning. Their goals conflict. The resistance want the United States out of their country. The Al Qa`eda knock-offs want to kill Americans (oh yes, and Shi`as too - they really hate Shi`as). They are not welcome in Iraq. It is very nice, though, for Petraeus to arm the mutual enemy of the Al Qa`eda knock-offs and the occupation, and give them better means to get rid of both!
"In any event, he's strengthened the sunni opponents of the shi'ite government over the long haul, and armed opponents of the American occupation."
1. Who cares about the make-believe government? They have no realy legitimacy, and couldn't do anything useful for Iraqis if they wanted to. They can't leave the green zone except to take a helicopter to the airport to fly to their real homes in London, Beirut, or Cairo (or Tehran), and they can't so much as take a potty break without approval signed in triplicate from the Americans. The ministries are all swarming with American "advisors" who are the real decision makers.
2. Americans who want their country out of Iraq should support the opponents of the American occupation, armed and non-armed. They are the only ones who will ever get the Americans out of there.
"Gen Pet is tying the hands of the next president into permanent occupation"
That was the whole point of the invasion, and most of the Democrats don't have a problem with that part of it (please read Levin/Reid, the "withdrawal" amendment that isn't, which I linked to above).
Posted by Shirin at July 19, 2007 02:57 PMiamcoyote,
I am glad to hear that no one was excited about the amendment, although I thought a few people were. My problem is that I kept hearing from quite a few otherwise very astute people that it would
1) withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
Nope! A withdrawal of an unspecified number of troops of uspecified designation to commence within 120 days.
2. Complete withdrawal by April 2008.
Nope, again, the completion of the withdrawal of an uspecified number of troops of unspecified designation, leaving an unspecified "limited presence" is what it calls for. It also implicitly allows for deployment of additional troops at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, iow, the White House.
Further, the "limitation of missions" section includes stuff that looks, walks, and quacks a lot like combat.
To satisfay this amendment all that really needs to happen is the withdrawal of a minuscule, symbolic number of troops.
Posted by Shirin at July 19, 2007 03:10 PMTo satisfay this amendment all that really needs to happen is the withdrawal of a minuscule, symbolic number of troops.
Exactly. So this was more of an exercise to show that even the most toothless legislation is being "blocked" or more appropriately, filibustered, by the GOP, who are still united behind Bush. No matter how poorly the press is covering this stuff, it's sinking in slowly to the public that the Republicans are a party of disastrous war. By the next election, hopefully, they won't be able to get elected dogcatcher, much less president. 'Course that won't fix the damage already done, but it may slow it down a bit, and that's all we can hope for in a violence-obssessed world.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 19, 2007 03:31 PMIt sure as hell won't fix the damage that will be done to Iraq, or bring back to life the tens of thousands of Iraqis that will be killed, or restore the lives and limbs of the Iraqis who will be maimed mentally and physically while the supposedly anti-war Democrats dick around playing political games.
Regarding the Valerie Wilson case, they anticipated that, and will appeal the decision. There is more information here.
Posted by Shirin at July 19, 2007 04:12 PM7 of 6 seemed to link General Odiero(sp) to generals telling this admin things that it doesn't want to hear.
If you quote me as providing a link, back it up peter!
Posted by Seven of Six at July 19, 2007 06:00 PMHey peter, things are going great in Ramadi right? It's just a little west of Ramadi that we have to worry about now! Two bridges were blown up west of Ramadi today in Al Anbar.
Anbar, Jul 19, (VOI) – Unidentified gunmen simultaneously detonated two bridges in the city of al-Haqlaniya on Thursday, local residents from the Sunni al-Anbar province said.
"Unknown gunmen planted explosive charges under the bridges of al-Haqlaniya and Wadi Hajlan in western Iraq and totally destroyed them at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday," an eyewitness told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
Al-Haqlaniya bridge, 200 meters long, was one of the most important bridges as it links the city of Haditha, 170 km west of Ramadi, capital of Anbar, to the city of al-Boghdadi, while Hajlan links Haditha to Hit, the witness said.
The bombings did not leave casualties, he said, adding Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops imposed tight security measures in the city afterwards.
There are more links to other bridges blown, kind of a pattern. It's bad for retreat purposes, supply lines, you know, logistics.
We can adapt and overcome, however, I have no doubt. It's not the troops I have a problem with, it's the fearless 'commander in chief'.
Did you see where the judge dismissed Valerie Plame's case against the White House?
Yep. Maybe on appeal.
Did you see where the Dems are amending Country of Origin Legislation? Beef from Mexico will now be labeled as beef from...the USA! Too cool! And no need to even label anything for country of origin. The Dems did this to preserve the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
Rumor has it that massive donations to the Dems from the grocery and meat packing industry lobbys had absolutely not a tittle to do with this. Go Dems! We're clapping for Tinkerbell! You're doing this for us, the little people...and your bank accounts.
This is pretty neat. The peaches I bought smell just like cheese! Shrimp, anyone? I boiled them up, but the shrimp boil spice I used left them smelling a little like Listerine and carbolic acid. The cat ate one...I think that's only a hairball he's yacking up.
Posted by phidipides at July 19, 2007 06:45 PMDid you see where the Dems are amending Country of Origin Legislation? Beef from Mexico will now be labeled as beef from...the USA!
Well, phidipides, we are just one, big, happy family. Will make the launch of the NAU that much easier for the globalists to accomplish.
Posted by Christopher at July 19, 2007 06:56 PMOpen letter to Ried from Senator Mike Gravel:
I am glad to see that you have finally used the powers of the Senate to try to stop the war, but frankly I agree with the Republicans: this week's Senate sleepover was more theater than substance.
First off, the Reid--Levin bill will not stop the war - it calls for a limited pull out that would leave the rest of our troops even more vulnerable. If we are going to fight to end the war, let's fight for a bill like I proposed which would immediately begin a complete troop withdrawal and make it a felony for George Bush to continue the war. Clinton, Biden, Obama and Dodd say they want to end the war, but so far none have submitted a bill that would really do it.
Second, your decision to accept the result of a single cloture vote lets the Republicans off the hook. One overnight debate didn't give the American public enough time to digest what was going on. They didn't even have time to contact their Senators and tell them to break with George Bush or face their wrath in 2008.
If you really want to shape war policy, you must call up a cloture vote every single day. Of course you wouldn't have the votes at first, but that's why you need to force the Senate to remain in session seven days a week to vote every day on cloture throughout the summer. The same tactic would apply for both the House and Senate to override a veto.
In the meantime the press will report on the daily votes alongside the mounting death toll. The American people will then have time to see which Senators and Congressmen still refuse to take responsibility for ending the carnage. If you keep up the pressure every single day, I guarantee your opponents will wither-on-the-vine and you will get an up-down vote. You've already flipped 4 of the 23 Republicans up for reelection next year. The rest will flip when their constituents weigh-in and threaten their political survival.
By not calling for repeated cloture votes throughout the summer, you let the heat off the Senate Republicans and you undermined your own cause by making the all-nighter look like a publicity stunt- exactly what your critics claim.
Harry, it's time to get serious about forcing a constitutional confrontation with Bush even if it means canceling the Congress' summer recess. Can you do anything less after a number of Senators have publicly ridiculed the Iraqi parliament for not canceling their summer recess. But why should vacations matter when American and Iraqi blood is being needlessly spilled? We Democrats need real leadership right now - not political showboating. Your colleagues in the Congress are not going to like the tough leadership I am suggesting. But believe me if you're successful, and you will be successful, your leadership will make Senate history.
Clearly you are not getting proper council and support from your fellow Senators and my presidential candidate colleagues. They all talk a good game about ending the war but they haven't shown any legislative leadership on the matter. As a former Senator with experience stopping an earlier futile war, I will be happy to meet with you and my candidate colleagues to explain how the Senate can begin the process of ending this war once and for all.
Feel free to call me.
Senator Mike Gravel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/open-letter-to-harry-reid_b_57084.html