"Joe Lieberman writes in the Wall Street Journal today that Democrats need to step back and give the surge time to work, until the summer, before moving on to the next step and more definitive action."
Exactly like we did with the weapons inspectors, right?
Posted by ckd at February 26, 2007 10:58 AMPeople are being killed and maimed everyday for no reason. Everything possible should be done to stop it now.
Too bad politics trump common sense everytime.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2007 11:21 AMAs a great American leader once said, A House Divided Cannot Stand, and it certainly can't manage a failed military occupation and deal with the greatest strategic error in American history.
For our constitutional system to continue functioning, Nero jr. would have to have accepted his electoral rebuke by the people, met with the new Congressional leaders and accepted an ACTUAL change of course that the Congress was on board with. But given his reckless nature and juvenile bully mentality, that level of statesmanship was impossible. Nero has made his rash, reckless choice, and history has recorded it.
An arrogant reckless corporate/weath-backed executive with absolute contempt for American democracy, an irresponsible criminal "conservative" political party that refuses to acknowledge its utter complicity in the Iraq disaster, and a deeply partisan populace, severely divided along regional lines, thus providing cover for the criminal GOP. Things are much, much worse than most people thought.
Cheney won't accept the citizens verdict on his invasion and occupation and the Repub party refuses to help enforce that solemn verdict. It's a stalemate, and our contitutional system of government has, after all these years, finally come a cropper and collapsed. Faced with enormous crisis, we can no longer function as a responsible political entity.
The pig-obstinate "conservatives" refuse to admit their mistakes, errors and incompetence in order to save face, and are happy to destroy our 220 year old system of government rather than admit their errors.
There's no reason to blame the Dems, they are trying most of what can be done, but our two party system REQUIRES two responsible parties, and one has opted out of the bargain, condemning the system to ruin.
With an economic catastrophe coming (not if but when), things are going to devolve very rapidly, given the civil war we have been pushed into. The future is very uncertain.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2007 11:33 AMThe GOP Funded Media has never stopped shilling for the White House/Corporate GOP. It relaxed enough, with the Olberman show and with a few reporters challenging Bush a bit more, to make the Left think the game changed regarding the Bush Regime. It has not, nor will it. MIsinformation and clogging the airwaves with Anna Nicole garbage is in full form again and the Dem's message will be buried under the latest Hillary/Obama spat (with giggles and inuendo abundant) to keep America's eyes off the tragedies and lies that continue unabated. Media Control has been central to the Bush Regime and that is just not going to change. The investment is too high.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2007 11:55 AMFrom Jon Kyl, in an op-ed piece in today's AZ Republic.
I returned home from this trip more convinced that stabilizing Iraq is the only acceptable outcome in this struggle, and that the president's new strategy is our best opportunity for achieving it.
Further support for your claim Steve!
McCain and Kyl, what a pair of Senators to have, argh!
Posted by Seven of Six at February 26, 2007 12:56 PM The more I read blogs on both the Left and Right I actually feel better about the job the press is doing. If both sides complain about how biased they are it means that they must be doing alright.
A question to throw out there, what if the surge works? When I mean works what if the violence goes down dramatically. Won't the Democratic party then be vulnerable to the charge of working for defeat. Isn't Lieberman's policey of wait and see the more politically safe course?
Right. The surge is going to work. Nice post of republican talking points, southdakotaboy. I am a Minnesota girl, and I know that you are entirely full of it.
Where you gave yourself away was talking about the Left and the Right. Nobody talks about that. What we talk about is the Sane and Normal, and the Greedy and Evil. No Left and Right involved.
Crawl back in your hole, Little Karl Rove Person. We don't care to hear it.
Posted by Rosebudear at February 26, 2007 02:33 PM"What if the Surge works?" Well, then the question will be why did it take Bush/Rummy/Cheney and their generals four years and 3100 American lives to try it?
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2007 02:41 PMAnyone up for invading Grenada? Who knew Iraq with their high-tech rocks and knives and glass bottles would be too tough for the mighty US military. Good thing the US didn't invade Cuba.
I have visions of the movie, "The Mouse That Roared", and Peter Sellars leading his dinghy boat invasion of NYC and coming ashore.
Even the troops are wanting to come home. GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War.
Posted by Alex at February 26, 2007 02:49 PMAnyone up for invading Grenada?
Have they got oil?
"We must address the Grenadines and their quest for WMDs. We have ample proof from unnamed sources that their production facilities for Grenadine are actually centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Vincentians are headloppers, worship a funny god, and we need to bring them democracy."
"What if the Surge works?"
What if pigs fly out of your ass? What makes you think the Mad King, idiot son of George, could suddenly have a plan that works? His track record throughout his entire life shows that he has never had a straight-up success beyond getting elected Guvn'r of Tex-ass and being appointed Chimporer by the Supremes. Everything else was supplied by others or was stuff he completely screwed-up, often under quite suspicious circumstances.
Taking an infantry batallion from Afghanistan to "surge" in Iraq leaves us closer to failure against the Taliban? Remember them?
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2007 03:11 PMIf violence in Baghdad actually goes down dramatically, then that will be more reason than ever to announce a dramatic reduction in US troops in Iraq, right? Which Dems would support (and probably call for). Think Bush will ever do that?
But returning to reality, when violence goes down in a widespread sectional "insurgency", it usually means the "insurgents" (i.e. citizens who want the hated foreign occupier out of their country) have just decided to take a lower profile, seeing what will happen.
Bush's escalation is really just returning more US troops to the house-to-house searches, together with setting up permanent "mini-forts" to see if they can draw attacks that they can counter-attack against. And of course stepping up the apartment house--oops, "safe" house--aerial bombing.
It basically means giving up the pretense of "relying" on and training Iraqi units, although the lies about "standing up" will continue.
And violence is not decreasing by any rational measure in Baghdad. Bombs are going off everywhere, even if the number of death squad morning corpses seems to have declined for now.
I think that everyone needs to step back and look at this from a slightly different angle. Everyone is assuming that Bush's plan in Iraq is failing, but the question is what really is the plan?
Could it have been to create just this kind of situation? Look how we now "surround" Iran on almost all sides. We have cleared the "forward area of battle". Now to do some imaginative thinking. Did anyone notice three rather seemingly unrelated facts. First, we all know that there are billions of dollars missing from the reconstruction effort. Second, there are litteraly tons of American made weapons and supplies missing. Third, Israel has recieved overflight rights from three gulf states.
Now try this on for size: After building and supplying an Iranian insurgency over the last few years. Next drawing Iran slowly but steadily into the fighting in Iraq and collecting "evidence" that they our providing supplies and troops. Now right befor the surge send in another carrier group and turn the US backed insurgency loose on Iran to build up even more tension. As the final trigger after Israel bombs Irans nuke sites we let them refuel on our carriers. Does anyone want to guess what happens next?
What? "....the congressional GOP leadership have successfully established a narrative with the media..."
What planet do you live in man? the media is part of the gop/conservative camp. Do you think the dems have an equal chance of turning the media around?
Posted by Parallax at February 26, 2007 05:13 PMAfter building and supplying an Iranian insurgency over the last few years. Next drawing Iran slowly but steadily into the fighting in Iraq and collecting "evidence" that they our providing supplies and troops. Now right befor the surge send in another carrier group and turn the US backed insurgency loose on Iran to build up even more tension.
As I understand it, a person can't fart in Iran without the mullahs knowing about it. So far, they are outhinking Bushco. But that's decidedly not a tall order.
As the final trigger after Israel bombs Irans nuke sites we let them refuel on our carriers. Does anyone want to guess what happens next?
Noors and Shkval style torpedoes sink the carriers? The Middle East erupts and the number of suicide bombers in Iraq increases exponentially? Iran rolls over and invites Cheney to do them in the butt? Pakistan nukes Tel Aviv? There are many many possibilities.
Posted by phidipides at February 26, 2007 05:45 PM Well ph you no totalitarian state (except maybe NK) is ever in complete control of their entire population. We might not want to be so quick to overestimate the Mullahs strength.
Next an attack on a carrier might be just what
the government wants. In all of your rebutals your making the assumption that we haven't picked sides in this little sectarian war between the Sunies and the Shia. What if we have cut a deal with our "good friends " the Saudies and are going to simpley wipe out the biggest shia power. Just so you know the millitary has been developing some rather interesting alternatives to nuclear weapons. Imagine an ICBM with a warhead full of the same type of sabot rounds that the A1-Abrhms uses.
We could also be setting up the Kurds to grab a large chunk of Iran as their own nation just to take pressure off Iraq. Or the Azerbijanies(sp) to annex that part which has a large Azi population.