George W. Bush - Worst King Ever
Posted by T2 at January 11, 2007 07:06 PMAs life is, I had to work an extra two hours tonight, missing the protest here in St. Louis (the owner is a Republican). I did however, run across this march to Washington D.C. on January 27th, leaving St. Louis via bus. Does anyone else know anything about this march?
There was nothing on the news in St. Louis about the two protests taking place today. When I googled protests, evidently there are constant and huge protests going on across this Nation, and we are not hearing about it. Interesting. Are we free, I don't think so.
Bring the Mandate for Peace to Washington DC - January 27
Military Families Speak Out, CodePINK, Veterans For Peace, and Instead of War invite you to travel with us from St. Louis to join a massive march on Washington DC, on Saturday January 27, to call on the new Congress to take immediate action to end the war.
On Election Day the voters delivered a dramatic, unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. We will converge from all around the country to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops brought home now!
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/267425
But he's already deployed the troops. Sure, public opinion is against him but are there any remedies? Congress can't call the troops home, can they? The only obvious solution is impeachment but I don't see the Dems moving in that direction so far.
Posted by ann at January 11, 2007 07:59 PMThis is when the 'One man, with Jesus, *is* a majority' bumperstickers come out.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 11, 2007 09:18 PMPelosi: "I'll vote the way...the lobbyests tell me to vote. I can make up my own mind...ass long as a lobbyest tells me what that is."
Posted by phidipides at January 11, 2007 10:36 PMBrzezinski was on the PBS NewsHour last night. He said that Deadeye's Escalation was not a new military strategy (more failed counterinsurgency), was not a new political strategy (no diplomacy, no regional approach), appeared intentionally to sow the seeds of escalating the "war" to include Iran and Syria, and could not succeed simply because our occupation is a colonial "war" in a post-colonial age which does not accept imperial power.
Hard to see how he could do any better than that. Americans are exhibiting pretty good judgment!
I wish senators would ask actual questions and stop giving speeches at hearings. Questions for Gates today: whose "plan" is this? Why was it rejected out of hand when first proposed by St. McCain? Why did al-Maliki first say he opposes more US trooops if it's actually his plan? (that's the story-it's the Iraqi's plan!). Has the plan been implemented in any way? Why was the plan implemented without Congressional input or approval? When were the first orders implementing the plan issued? Did Gates approve of presenting this as a fait accompli to the Congress?
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2007 07:06 AMThere are times when politicians must go against public opinion and do the right thing for the country. This is necessary when they possess knowledge that the public does not and when the public does not understand what is at stake.
The President (who has shown tremendously poor judgement throughout his terms) is now belatedly doing what should have been done before. The problem now is that the troop numbers are still too little. More troops are necessary. Despite what the public seems to think, the military approach is different this time (troops will be going about counter-insurgency operations differently). There is still a shot at victory however slim. We are losing but have not yet lost. The more frightening problem now is that everyone knows this is the last shot at winning. Our enemies know this. They therefore possess a tremendous edge.
One of Bush's greatest failings has been his inability to articulate the stakes. (Articulation was never one of his strong points.) Withdrawal from Iraq would result in a very vicious civil war, ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, and a likely regional war with Iranian, Syrian, Turkish, and Saudi participation. Oil prices would go sky high. Things might get so bad that we might actually return.
Even if it were not for the interests of our country, those who oppose this war should at least look at the humanitarian stakes. If only but to head off death and destruction on a massive scale, we should stay. Those who would have us send forces to Sudan and favored our participation in Bosnia should keep this in mind.
Posted by InIraq at January 12, 2007 09:18 AMMore rampant speculation of disaster from the Neo-con militarist wing---the wing which has not made ONE correct prediction about Iraq since they first learned the word. And still we see the use of the word "winning"! Incredible.
This is simple rationalization for a permanent occupation and an expansion of the regular American military forces. Good use of the standard platitudes, although you forgot to mention that Iran and Syria are the real problem and need to be "confronted". So a B- ......
The Nationalist Right of every colonial occupying power always predicts disaster if the occupation is not continued indefinitely.
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2007 09:44 AMBeing on the ground in Iraq, it is fairly easy to see the direction that the country is taking. Iraq is falling apart. Sectarian violence is widespread. Those who have the means are leaving - a terrible drain of talent and wealth. As for civil war and a humanitarian disaster, it is not "rampant speculation" but an informed assesment of the situation. Ethnic cleasning is occuring now. Civil war is here now. It is obvious that a US withdrawal will result in even more deaths. This is not a Neo-Con, nationalist, or militarist perspective. It is merely a realistic one.
Posted by InIraq at January 12, 2007 10:27 AMEscalating house-to-house tactics and "confronting" Iran will certainly result in more deaths, and leaving will likely result in more deaths. Everything will result in more deaths; you somehow think you know which approach will result in the least number of additional deaths, which I doubt.
And 20,000 "more" troops phased in over several months will not do one damn thing about any of it. Iraq's demographics, neighbors, culture and history are what they are. Another thing we can't do anything about.
If your assessment is correct, then the only thing holding Iraq together as a "nation" is the US military---not a promising long term solution, eh? What exactly will change these underlying dynamics the longer we stay there? Attacking Iran? Or are you acknowledging that this has become a permanent occupation by "necessity"?
Secular Iraq has been destroyed by this foolish invasion, and the US isn't going to be able to dictate what it will become, no matter how many troops we send and for how long.
Iraqi opinion polls make clear they don't want us there, and American opinion polls say we don't want to stay. In "democracies" such phenomenon are supposed to be of consequence, and "politicians" in such democracies are supposed to act on them---even if the military doesn't approve of the idea or has "new" strategies.
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2007 11:01 AMSure, public opinion is against him but are there any remedies? Congress can't call the troops home, can they?
Opinions differ. I think this is probably right. Even if Congress overrode a veto (hah!) the President could still refuse to execute the law. Then Congress would have to find a way to take him to court, and the courts would likely avoid confronting the issue for fear that they would lose institutional power when Bush blew THEM off.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 11:57 AMTrue. Any path now taken will result in more deaths. But there are paths that are better than others. If withdrawal was indeed the best route and morally superior, than it should be taken. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
It is also true that the 21,500 is probably not enough which means that troops will be moved into Baghdad from other parts of the country. It is also true that the US military presence is the only thing keeping the country together. However, that does not mean that we should not try to keep Iraq in one piece. In any partition scenario, the fighting over Baghdad would be extremely destructive. Neither the Sunnis or Shias would give it up. Think Beirut or worse.
Fortunately, Gen Petraeus, the new general in charge, has a proven track record of successfully fighting insurgencies. His record in Northern Iraq was remarkably successful. He understands the need to work with the local population and avoid antagonistic behaviour.
In the end, it comes down to taking the morally best choice. An immediate withdrawal will almost certainly result in the worst numbers of casualties. With the US staying in Iraq, there is at least a chance at stability and peace. Even if this surge effort fails, at least we will know that we did what we could to salvage the situation instead of knowingly damning millions of Iraqis to terrible deaths.
As for politicians, it is refreshing to realize that some of them do indeed take their responsibilities seriously and do the unpopular thing when it is needed instead of basing every decision on polls that can fluctuate with the wind.
Posted by InIraq at January 12, 2007 01:58 PM