I find it odd that the minute Bush gets back from talking with Maliki (sp?) the Iraqi guy announces the Amesty for GI Killers Only plan. Did he not talk to Bush about this? Very strange. Maybe some of the GOP Media will ask George if this was discussed. And when today will the Dem Leadership denounce this amnesty plan??? They will, won't they?
Posted by T2 at June 15, 2006 09:26 AMI'm a bit confused here Steve. You are not saying it is OK for us to invade another country and kill their people with no consequence, but it is not OK fr them to kill ours in retalliation or self defense are you?
It seems to me that as horrible as this war is, that we have lost 2,500 of our own, that's just the way war works. The idea that the United States can invade another country (especially without any legitimate reason) and unilaterally declare the opposition criminals doesn't make sense to me. I understand that it will play to certain segment of our society and that is the intent. However, this is one reason why this war is so wrong in the first place. There just isn't any legal or moral grounds for us to stand on which would allow us to consider the resistance criminal. This just makes it all the more tragic.
The war is illegal. But the House GOP is being grossly inconsistent here, and is displaying questionable values if they feel that purported amnesty for illegal immigrants must be opposed at all costs, while amnesty for insurgents who kill Americans gets a pass.
Moreover, if the GOP even grudgingly accepts what al-Maliki is proposing, then they are also acknowledging that we are in an illegal occupation where the killing of the occupiers is considered an acceptable act of resistence.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 15, 2006 09:59 AM2500 dead in Iraq? My God, that is Viagra to the neo-cons. The celebration and backslapping over Zar-whooties death is the stage on which the neo-cons desperate grab at any sembelance of success is played out. Our young in Iraq are on multiple tours, undersupplied, underfed, over medicated, and undersupported by the administration. They are coming back insane, and so shatterred that they will likely never function well in society upon their return. They are a photo op, nothing more.
Posted by phidipides at June 15, 2006 10:13 AMIt is Bush who has dubbed normal Iraqi citizens "terrorists, or insurgents". Mostly they are simply Iraqis fighting invading US troops. Maliki seems to say exactly this in his "amnesty statement. We/Bush invaded a nation for no reason.....the 2500 dead GI's is 100% on his back.
Posted by T2 at June 15, 2006 10:49 AMCouldn't the story just as easily been headed "Iraqi PM declares 'open season' on US troops"?
Posted by Zakman44 at June 15, 2006 11:06 AMA Congressional "Resolution" on the Iraq occupation, done purely for divisive political purposes---as always, it's party over country for the criminal Republican Party. Will the Dems even criticize the intent behind this "Resolution"?
The Iraq occupation is permanent, insurgency or no. We have spent billions building permanent bases and a fortress complex in Baghdad. We aren't hoing anywhere, anytime---note that NO Dem is questioning these bases and what we are doing constructing them.
The Iraq government is a complete puppet affair. It operates utterly and completely inside our Baghdad Fortress, as Bzezinski pointed out on PBS NewsHour last night.
After the (last) election, we refused to accept the duly selected PM al Jafaari, and "accepted" al Maliki. Then we told Maliki to stop saying we should leave by the end of this year---so he started saving we should leave by the end of 2007. Now he has been told to stop saying even this, and to say they "want" us to occupy their country.
With our essentially state-run press, whose fealty to Bushco is simply staggering, the simpleton citizenry cannot be expected to figure out what to do.
Posted by euzoius at June 15, 2006 11:12 AMnote that NO Dem is questioning these bases
IIRC, kerry did just that, as far back as the 04 election.
Posted by benjoya at June 15, 2006 11:16 AMSpeaking of Iraq, this gem from Tony Snow today:
Reacting to the new milestone on combat deaths, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, "It's a number."
That's right. A number. Just a number. Not 2,500 American lives, not 2,500 souls, not 2,500 sons and daughters, it's just a number.
Posted by ann at June 15, 2006 11:19 AMbenjoya, I don't remember that, but I'm always happy to stand corrected by you. I still think it's fair to say that Dems are pretty darn quiet on the issue.
This is what happens when a party decides that it's not going to have a "unified" message on a huge national issue. They get beaten about the head and shoulders with it anyway, and they're not even sure what to say in defense.
Posted by euzoius at June 15, 2006 11:27 AMTwo points. Perhaps Bush advisors know that Iraqi reconciliation is the only way to at least lessen the 'insurgency', show some progress from the new hand-picked government, and calm a very distraught American public before the elections.
Secondly, he doesn't want to piss off his new pal and make the obtaining of oil even more difficult. Did you notice in his Rose Garden speech he mentioned increased oil capacity, although attempted to make the real motivation sound less obvious by stating Iraqi's would share in the profits.
Posted by tempus at June 15, 2006 12:21 PMbut only if they killed Americans (with a subtext of not killers of Iraqis I assume).
As you say, it's clear why Maliki has to do this, but this is pure poison for the Bu$hCo supporters. This is worse than the sell-the-ports-to-the-Arabs fiasco. Now, will the Dems have the sense to make enough noise about this?
???
Posted by quixote at June 15, 2006 12:22 PMUnfortunately, the Dems, or some of them, can be dealt four aces, and still fold. There has to be a vaccine to prevent this.
Posted by tempus at June 15, 2006 12:25 PMWADR, "begs the question" does not mean "suggests this question;" it means "avoids the question."
Just because sportscasters say things, doesn't mean that literate people have to repeat their mistakes.
is an interesting comparison, though.
Posted by seesdifferent at June 15, 2006 12:40 PMSteve:
WADR, "begs the question" does not mean "suggests this question;" it means "avoids the question."
Just because sportscasters say things, doesn't mean that literate people have to repeat their mistakes.
is an interesting comparison, though.
Posted by seesdifferent at June 15, 2006 12:41 PMCan someone show me where the GOP accepted this proposal from Prime Minister al-Maliki? All I read was that several GOP House members were outraged by this. I didn't read anything about an endorsement by the party.
I'm a bit confused because the title of this entry presumes endorsement. Seems a bit misleading. Perhaps this might have been better AFTER the GOP endorses al-Maliki's plan.
Posted by Gary at June 15, 2006 12:48 PMGary:
The leader of the GOP, President Bush, has not objected to this or killed the proposal in his cheerleading over the last day or so.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 15, 2006 01:21 PMeuzolus, fair enough. this should be a high-profile issue and it isn't.
and where is the press? bush said any withdrawal would be another president's decision, but has anyone in the press corpse specifically asked about the permanent bases?
Posted by benjoya at June 15, 2006 01:29 PMGary:
The GOP, at least in the Senate, now endorses amnesty for those who killed our soldiers. See the post at the top.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 15, 2006 02:25 PMBenjoya: I guess permanent means we're not leaving 'til the oil runs out.
Posted by tempus at June 15, 2006 02:28 PMI wonder that if the Iraqi government can actually get its shit together, they will simply tell the US to get the fuck out of their sovereign, democratic country?
I think the new Prime Minister suggested that in an offhand way during Bush's 'visit', and Bush just about went ballistic, not that he could scare a competent Girl Scout.
Posted by tempus at June 15, 2006 02:36 PMCome on - there are much better things to hit this administration over the head with. Reasonable people, yes even democrats, can have "issues" with the overwhelming number of immegrants that are coming into this country illegally.
It is a lie that they only take jobs Americans won't do -- since when has democrat/progressive/liberal positions required siding with powerful corporations so they can have cheap labor.
This will become a more divisive issue in the democratic party than in the repug party -- after all, they have stood for screwing American workers for generations.
You post he is BS! Any number of people, left and right, can take issue with amnesty for illegal immegrants.
Posted by anonymous at June 15, 2006 03:06 PMWhy Would GOP Allow Amnesty For Iraqi Killers, But Not Immigrants?
Because we fight Them there, but we have to hire Them here!
Posted by tempus at June 15, 2006 07:17 PMNice post. I linked to it at Good Nonsense.
Posted by The Boy at June 15, 2006 08:46 PM