"We're not at the point where the president is going to be in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan," Hadley said.
And yet, if Chris Matthews and his ilk are to be believed, the real problem is that Howard Dean and the Democratic Party are not able to lay out a comprehensive plan. After all, they won the mid-term elections and now control both houses. Isn't Bush now off the hook for Iraq?
If the Democrats could stay on message for a week or two, they should just repeat over and over, "Everything the president has done has failed. We are expecting a new strategy and a new plan for Iraq. We do not understand what is taking him so long. He has been in charge for six years now."
The entire Bush/Cheney Junta and their supportive apparatus are working diligently toward one goal: find a way to blame the Democrats for Bush/Cheney's failure in Iraq. The Democrats better be on top of this and stay on top of this or they are going to wind up wearing the jacket for this, just like with Viet Nam.
Posted by James E. Powell at November 27, 2006 04:57 PMLittle Boots is incapable of putting forth a "comprehensive plan."
Such a task falls to Cheney or now, his beloved Poppy.
Posted by Christopher at November 27, 2006 05:28 PMI'm speechless.
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2006 06:01 PM"We're not at the point where the president is going to be in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan," Hadley said.
What the fuck does that mean Hadley? Why not?
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2006 06:10 PM"We're not at the point where the president is going to be in a position to lay out a comprehensive plan," Hadley said.
They stalled right after;
4: Land on aircraft carrier and declare "Mission Accomplished" in dramatic fashion.
Nohin' but broken plays since then.
Posted by snark at November 27, 2006 06:21 PMWhoever runs Iran's version of the CIA is is for a huge bonus:
"I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm going to get the U.S. to knock out Saddam, and replace him with a guy who's on our side. It's gonna be great."
"Yeah, right."
"Just you watch—I'll tell you what, the guys running the U.S. these days are just dumb enough to do it."
Posted by dj moonbat at November 27, 2006 07:46 PMMilitary Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
11-2006 62 6 2 70 2.59 27
10-2006 106 2 2 110 3.55 31
9-2006 72 3 2 77 2.57 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 2882 126 121 3129 2.32 1349
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Iraq is lost. Who pays for the senseless deaths detailed above?
I don't believe the Kurdish Talabani really speaks for Iraq, nor Ahmadinejad for Iran. Like Bush, they are elites playing politics.
Yes, it's certainly clear why Bush 'stayed the course'; he simply never had a Plan B. But I doubt that Iran will gain the influence it wants, despite that.
And Bush can go back to the bottle and plan another war.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at November 27, 2006 07:54 PMLook at the big picture. Worldwide oil supplies are declining as consumption dramatically increases. What should the U.S. do?
1. Pursue critical alliances with key producing countries, initiate programs to massively support energy conservation and proactively move the country toward alternative renewable energy?
2. Piss off key producing countries, use the U.S. military to invade (had to rush in before the inspectors found no evidence) and heist Iraq's oil to benefit special interest and implement a cluster of massive failures.
Which option makes the most sense?
Which option is Russia and China using?
Who was involved in the decision to spend taxpayer’s money to guarantee oil profits for the special interest?
Should Exxon-Mobile and Chevron-Texaco be paying for this mess or should the government continue giving them unjust tax breaks while failing to control a refining monopoly?
What are we going to do about it?
Who pays for the senseless deaths detailed above?
No one. The only way to bring justice to the deaths of all these people, including the Iraqis, is the Hague. We also know that no one is going to bring George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., to face a trial at the Hague.
While thousands of Americans will face life without the return of those they loved, Bush will go back to Crawford and live a life of an elitist. While thousands of people will morn, Bush will go back to drinking, snorting coke, pulling pranks, back slapping, bicyle riding and being irresponsible as usual. There is no justice short of being jailed in a prison for the rest of his life as a war criminal.
Posted by Judith at November 28, 2006 03:43 AMSteve, I'm glad you caught and posted the Hadley comment. This is "it" in a nutshell. That quote should be repeated by every Democrat on every interview or Talking Head appearance. The Bush Admin has no plan, had no plan, and will have no plan. Choke on that trolls, as you watch our GI's continue to die. Bring the troops home now!
Posted by T2 at November 28, 2006 06:12 AMWhat's especially hilarious is that the crackerjack press who heard the Hadley "statement" appear not to have even asked what the Hell it could mean!
Yep, for years they repeat the nonsense that the Commander in Chief is so all-powerful he doesn't have to obey laws passed by Congress (FISA, Geneva Convention, Intelligence Act). But the C-in-C apparently can be "in a position" where he can't "lay out a comprehensive plan" to win a foreign occupation.
Great thinking as always, WH press corps!
Posted by euzoius at November 28, 2006 07:03 AM