repeating failure is a hallmark of Bush foreign actions (I can't use the word "policy"). Just look at his latest statement on the Iranian NIE...."It doesn't fit the way I want things to be, so it is no good". Just like Iraq WMD. Take a minute and consider what a statement like that, given to heads of state and broadcast worldwide, means to the Intelligence agencies of the United States and their staffs...it means "screw you". It means no matter how hard you work to collect and interpret intel on very serious subjects, that work can be dismissed instantly on arrival if it does not fit the political direction the president wants. Would that make the intel agencies want to work harder, get better? I doubt it. We have a Commander in Chief actually degrading the nation's defense due to his actions. Impeachable.
Posted by T2 at January 15, 2008 06:14 AMAs T2 irrefutably demonstrates, Cheney/Bush simply have nothing but contempt for the way the government (including the executive branch) actually operates. An NIE is the "state of reality" for the US government, that's its purpose. Yet these criminals think they can "decide" otherwise, based merely on their wishes.
Impeach.
As for Pakistan, this is what happens when "missteps" are made at EVERY decision point. You find yourself in a nighmare situation in which there is simply no good option.
This is what it means to say Bush lost the "war on terra"---he has made things incomparably worse through his serial terrible decisions, and it's just not the case that someone "competent" can necessarity come in and retrieve a situation that's so far gone.
Pakistan can't suppress this radical movement, isn't about to "let" us try, nor do we have the military ability to do anything is any case. Options: none. Guess we'll ignore it, which is what Bushco has basically been doing since 2002. That's our policy.
Impeach, for symbolic purposes if nothing else.
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2008 08:58 AMOur taxes at work, bringing carnage, ruin and misery to innocents in another lost war:
"Since March there have been at least six incidents in which Western troops, mainly those under American command, have been accused of killing Afghan civilians, with more than 135 deaths reported and many more wounded. According to Red Cross, bombing by U.S. forces in western Afghanistan last month destroyed or badly damaged some 170 houses and left almost 2,000 people in four villages homeless.
Mounting civilian casualties are turning Afghans against the nearly 45,000 U.S. and NATO troops in their country...These incidents also provide a propaganda windfall and new recruits for the Taliban."
Losing the 'other war' in Afghanistan by Karl F. Inderfurth, IHT, May 29, 2007
So what's the bipartisan remedy? Administer more carnage, ruin and misery (send more recruiters)!
"The Marines will move out quickly...in time to respond to an expected spring offensive by the Taliban.
The additional forces...total of 3,200...include helicopters, combat forces, and trainers...will go to Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold where coalition forces have been engaged in heavy combat.
Military officials say there has been a 40 percent increase in overall attacks in Afghanistan since last year and a 20 percent increase in suicide bombings."
Afghanistan Welcomes U.S. Troop Surge by Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Jan. 10, 2008
"...Welcomes..."? That's rich. Maybe they'll name a mountain range after us too. And now "American officials have begun to weigh more robust covert operations to go after Al Qaeda in the lawless border areas because they are so concerned that the Pakistani government is unable to do so."
Another untouchable subject for our presidential candidates:
Why do they still hate us, yet no longer fear us?
Conversely, it could also mean intel thinks Bush and Cheney are morons, kind of like that clueless manager we all know from work...
Posted by simon at January 15, 2008 10:26 AMhere are Bush's words on the NIE:
``I defended the intelligence community but I made it clear that they are an independent agency,'' Bush said. ``They come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want.''
Amazing statement, wouldn't you say?
t2,
i think we all know that bush and intelligence never have anything to do with each other...
Posted by Turkana at January 15, 2008 11:46 AMwhy is anyone surprised that things are getting worse in Pakistan after Dear Leader let Osama escape?
can't grab more and more power without having a bogeymen to scare the American people
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 15, 2008 12:21 PMIt is not just Bush/Cheney to blame. All our administrations have not believed India when it complained that Pakistan is formenting terrorism in Kashmir since 1980s. Only after 9/11 that the American government has began to see difference between India and Pakistan. The ISI have nurtured Taliban and had them infilterate to Indian Kashmir to perform killings and bombings. First they went after killing Hindus and then Sikhs. While this was going on American government looked the other way. Now the same Taliban has turned against Pakistan government. I will not be surprised if Taliban's aim is to make Pakistan a base that they lost in Afghanistan. If they do take over Pakistan, the nuclear weapopns will fall in their hands and that would be a true disaster. If that happens, the countries that are in danger of nuclear attack are India and Israel.
Posted by suresh at January 15, 2008 01:30 PMThe great thing about Bush's statements on "the IC" as an "independent agency" (?) whose conclusions "he may or may not want" is that it demonstrates how he "uses" intelligence----he has pre-conceived notions that he arrived at without clear evidence and continues to hold no matter what the "evidence" turns out to be.
The use of the word "want" is the crucial giveaway on how the deciderer operates---the (post hoc) evidence and conclusions are simply used to support (not inform) a pre-existing policy that is based on presidential "desire". This also reveals that (in his mind) what the president "wants" is a crucial factor for executive agencies evaluating empirical evidence.
This also makes clear that the intelligence "conclusions" about Iraq were meaningless to Bush's preconceived policy of invasion----those were simply conclusions he "wanted" since he had already made up his mind to invade. They were thus "after the fact" and had nothing to do with determining whether we "needed" to invade Iraq.
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2008 02:05 PM