Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Exit
After two days of Congressional testimony by Washington's top two officials in Iraq, prospects for a substantial withdrawal of U.S. military forces there before the end of President George W. Bush's tenure at the White House look as remote as ever.
Bush himself is expected to take to the airwaves Thursday evening to endorse the recommendations made here this week by Gen. David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce U.S. troop levels by some 30,000 -- or only about 20 percent -- by August next year.
That would leave at least 135,000 U.S. soldiers and marines in place -- roughly the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated last February -- thus passing along to his successor, who will take office in January 2009, the problem of extricating the U.S. from its bloodiest and most costly overseas adventure since the Vietnam War.
Democratic leaders say such a reduction is not nearly enough, particularly in light of the inability of either Petraeus or his civilian counterpart in Baghdad, Amb. Ryan Crocker, to point to any serious progress over the past eight months in achieving the kind of national reconciliation among the warring factions in Iraq that the surge was designed to promote.
"Are we any closer to a lasting political settlement in Iraq...today than we were when the surge began eight months ago, and if we continue to surge for another six months, the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds will stop killing each other and start governing together?" asked Sen. Joseph Biden, who chaired Tuesday's Foreign Relations Committee hearings at which Crocker and Petraeus testified. "The answer to both those questions is 'no'."
Some Republicans appeared to agree, including two of the war's most steadfast backers -- Rep. James Walsh and Sen. Elizabeth Dole -- who said they had changed their minds.
"The continued failure of the (Nouri al-) Maliki government to achieve reconciliation, and the fact that current U.S. force levels are not sustainable beyond next spring, compels me to support what some have called 'action-forcing measures'," Dole said, suggesting that she would support Democratic efforts to at least change the current mission of U.S. forces from counter-insurgency to intensified training of Iraqi forces.
But even with the two most recent defectors' support, Democrats are still unlikely to come within hailing distance of the two-thirds majority they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
"Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto, there is nothing we can do to end this war," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden. At this point, most analysts believe that the 50 Senate Democrats will be fortunate to muster the more than 60 votes they need to cut off a Republican filibuster on any war-ending or mission-changing legislation they introduce.
While breaching the 60-vote threshold in the Senate would be seen as a serious political blow to Bush, most analysts believe that the president is not prepared to compromise and still believes that Washington can prevail in Iraq. This attitude was expressed most directly, if crassly, by him during a conversation with a senior Australian officials at last week's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Sydney last week.
"We're kicking ass in Iraq," he reportedly told Deputy Premier Mark Vaile.
Petraeus was indeed able to cite statistics that showed a substantial decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad -- the surge's main tactical goal -- if not the rest of Iraq. However, both he and Crocker conceded that progress on the political front -- that is, national reconciliation, the surge's overall strategic objective -- was negligible, at best.
Petraeus also admitted that the one clear achievement of the past seven months, the eviction of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) by Sunni tribal militias in much of al Anbar province, had taken place spontaneously and was unrelated to the surge, although he stressed that U.S. military forces were actively recruiting and supporting Sunni militias elsewhere in hopes of replicating the relative pacification of Anbar in other Sunni-dominated regions.
He and Crocker, as well as other administration officials and supporters, depicted developments in Anbar as part of a "bottoms-up strategy" for national reconciliation by which former Sunni insurgents had become de facto allies of U.S. forces and even the Shia-dominated Maliki government against AQI.
But that notion has been questioned by a number of lawmakers and independent analysts who have argued that, while the militias now consider AQI the greater enemy, they may very well end up turning their guns on the government and on U.S. forces that support it.
"If (the bottoms-up strategy) is not successful in bringing all forces into some kind of reconciliation, it will simply provide the fuel for a much more violent civil war," said James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defence Policy Center of the Rand Corporation, who served as Washington's Special Envoy to Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Afghanistan after civil conflicts in those countries.
In his testimony, Petraeus recommended that Washington withdraw 2,000 marines by the end of this month and another 4,000 soldiers before the end of the year. Some 24,000 more troops would be gradually withdrawn over the first seven months of 2008, according to Petraeus' plan, which also called for Congress to review the situation again next March.
But critics pointed out that under the military's current regulations -- whereby tours of duty in combat zones are limited to 15 months -- 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and that the early withdrawal of 6,000 troops appeared designed to earn the goodwill, and continued loyalty, of increasingly uneasy Republicans.
"It seems to me that this is throwing a sop to a very influential Republican," said ret. Gen. Robert Gard. He noted that Sen. John Warner, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has become increasingly outspoken about his doubts about the surge and U.S. strategy, had called earlier this month for Bush to bring home a brigade before Christmas.
"It's a political move," said Jon Alterman, director of Middle East programmes at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, of the plan. "It may be enough to buy the president enough time and get the appropriations he seeks to (continue) fund(ing) the war."
The administration is pressing Congress to approve 200 billion dollars to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1.
Still, Democrats are working with as many as a dozen worried Republicans on drafting legislation that would make it much harder for Bush to "stay the course" through the end of his term.
© 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllBush is decieveing the US public in an almost pathetic example of using TROOP CHURN as a way to get right back to where the toop levels were before the surge....essentially more of the same...more STAY the COURSE but with a surge slant on it where it can be advertsied and sold as a troop drawdown to try and rally DWINDLING support within the Republican base. Repos elected this guy TWICE so it would not be surprising if this transparent effort to simnply "gussy up" his "Stay the Course" Iraq policy with the churn increase and then a churn draw down back to square one of a few months ago.
Are Americans REALLY that gullible!???
The conservatives are hypocrites. THEY DON'T WANT TO WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ.
If we collectively, dems and reps included, really wanted to win the war, we'd step up to the plate and contribute to the war. Fact is despite all our hooting and hollering and "tough" war rhetoric, we don't want to win the war. America and especially those who are in favor of the war don't have the stomach and backbone to do what must be done to win.
And if we implemented the measures necessary to win, there would be a public outcry, and even an outcry from the wealthy and the corperations. Then we'd collectively end the war. If we issued (any of) the following, how long do you think this war would last?
-Military draft for all of those ages 18-34. No deferments for college. No special treatment for the wealthy.
-For those not in military shape, a mandatory civil-military service of some kind. It doesn't have to be a permanent full time job, these can be part time- but you'd either have to take time our of your schedule or reduced time at work. This goes for every American age 18-65 regardless of past service. Every American can contribute in one way or another.
-Underage American teenagers are required to participate in mandatory before and/or afterschool physical fitness to prepare them for when they're of military age.
-Raised income tax rates to fund the war, recontruction, and the soldiers. and to regulate and reduce corruption in war contracts, "missing" reconstruction dollars.
-All war contacts must be bid on, and must go to the lowest bidder. No favoritism or special treatment behind closed doors deals. All contracts will be non-profit.
-All of the millions of refugees that the war creates from our "liberation" have immediate amnesty and safety in the Continental United States as temporary guest immigrants untill the "liberation" and civil war in their country ends.
And that's just a few suggestions. Take it a little further and ad the following.
-First draftees on the list are those whose household income exceeds 100,000.
-First draftees included politicians of all federal, state, and local government officials, starting with the Executive Branch, Congress and all the way down in that order.
People can say they want to win all they want. They can say that the war is necessary and that this is the battle of our lifetime. The reality is their efforts stop at words and rhetoric only.
Estimate of the number of dead expected in Iraq by 2017, which is when the United States expects that it will be leaving Iraq, is 8 million.
"Iraq and American Death Count to 2017"
http://www.chycho.com/?q=2017
"The numbers from this estimate are devastating. It is expected that over 8 million Iraqi civilians and well over 27 thousand coalition troops will be dead by March 2017. The monthly death rate for coalition troops will increase to approximately 300, while Iraq's monthly death rate will increase to close to 95 thousand, which is frighteningly close to the more than 130,000 deaths per month witnessed in Rwanda in 1994 (see post from August 29th, 2006). These numbers do not included the expected death toll due to Depleted Uranium poisoning."
When Bush said, ___ "We're kicking ass"! ___ He meant Halliburton was making far more profit than had been projected.
$200 billion in the rat hole, will be $100 billion for private contractors, $50 billion for whomever, and the rest for supplying our troops, who will serve 15 months in a combat zone, three months at home and then back to Iraq. Didn't several generals state our military was broken last year? ____ Yes, they did. A year later, then another year and beyond, until who in hell knows. What defining word is worse than broken?
Bush is insane and so are at least, 40% of our Congress. ___ At least 40%!
MASTERSHAKE AND SALVIA, you both nailed it.
I would also suggest, that the 'very first' thing our Congress could and should do, is draft and pass an ammendment to our Constitution, stating lobbying in the United States is illegal,____ from now thru perpituity.
"'Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto, there is nothing we can do to end this war,' said Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden."
No. Deceitful. Cowardly. Stop approving the funding for it.
The American public needs to "kick ass" in Washington, BIG TIME! Starting with our cowardly blow-hard president.
Yep, first thing I noticed is that this article repeats the outright lie that the Democrats try to spread about needing 67 votes to end this war. That's complete BS. Of course, I wouldn't expect anything less that BS from the Democrats, but there it is ... again.
And doesn't this collapse of the Democrats into supporting yet more money for yet more death and destruction seem just all to pat and pre-planned? All summer long we've heard from the lying SOBs that lead the Democrats that we should 'wait for September' and that's when they'd 'revisit' the Iraq issue.
Well, a 'revisit' by the Democrats seems just as phony as those 'visits' they all make to Iraq where they stay in the Green Zone and drink the US Army KoolAid about how wonderful things are going in Iraq. Now we see the quick collapse of the Democrats as an opposition, and now we get to see the Democrats line up and salute the General's pretty medals and vote more money for more death and destruction.
As usual with the Democrats, it was all phony political theater designed to misleadingly give the impression that they are really opposed to this war that they voted to authorize in the first place and that they've voted to fully fund every year along the way.
This is just one clear example of the big lies that are the very core of today's Democratic party. They make pretty little speeches that sound like they oppose the war. Then they go vote more funding for the war they say they oppose. Then they lie about how powerless they are to really do anything about it.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat. A load of lies, then you have to watch them line up with the Republicans to vote against what the American people want.
As long as the current regime exists in the Congress and the White House, the occupation will continue. Let those decent members in Congress vote to end the debacle, and take every step they can to bring that about. For the rest, and the administration, they will be left in the sewer of disgrace throughout history. It's too bad for everyone.
PS ... to the first comment. Americans are not this gullible. By and large, the American people get it and get it right. In polls, large majorities say the war was wrong to begin with and that we should get out as soon as we can.
The problem is that the American people are powerless to change this today. Where they were gullible was in voting for the Democrats as a supposed opposition party, when in reality the Democrats support the same policies. They just lie about it before and after they vote to support them. So, today it doesn't matter that the American people don't believe any of this (large majorities said even before the testimony that they felt Petreus was not to be believed). That's because American citizens have very little representation in Congress.
The only way to change it from within is to buck the system and vote for candidates that don't belong to either the Democrat or Republican parties. And that's hard in a system that works very hard to make sure that as few people as possible know that this is even an option.
The other way to change it is to go outside the system and have something like a general strike. The American people could "just say no", and stop working and stop buying until the government listens. But again, that's hard within a system that goes to great lengths to make sure the American people don't even think that is an option.
"Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto, there is nothing we can do to end this war," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden. At this point, most analysts believe that the 50 Senate Democrats will be fortunate to muster the more than 60 votes they need to cut off a Republican filibuster on any war-ending or mission-changing legislation they introduce.
To begin to end this war we do not need 67 votes to over ride a veto nor do we need 60 votes to cut off a filibuster!! All we need is 41 votes and a senator who has courage enough to filibuster any spending bill to further finance this illegal war. Bush wants more money to finance the war and will veto any bill which demands that some of the funds go towards bringing home our soldiers/marines. The bill passed for such funding should include a provision to finance the draw down of troops. Any bill which attempts to provide the funding Bush is asking for should be filibustered if it does not also ear mark some of the funding to bring home troops. We do not need a veto proof bill and we do not need to have 60 votes to cut off a Republican filibuster, all we need is to oppose any bill for further funding which does not provide for a draw down of troops. This can be accomplished with only 41 votes and a senator who has courage enough to filibuster.
What does "Win the war in Iraq" really mean? What we have done so far is akin to robbing and raping Mother Teresa - do we get a Medal of Freedom for this war crime? As far as stopping this atrocity all that congress needs to do is for the House to SIT ON THEIR HANDS - that's where the money starts! This catastrophy stops when our House doesn't send a funding bill to the Senate - end of story, end of war! Should our elected officials spend another dime on this travesty then we will know that these child killing baby butchers are only interested in Big Oil and Israel. This crap about 67 votes is all part of the Smoke and Mirrors that is our so called government.
.
NO EXIT
.
I remember a stage play by that name about a group of people trapped in a room with an unlocked door...
Dennis Kucinich HAS the answer. Has HAD the answer. If you would take some time to go to his website, you could see for yourself. He lays it all out in black and white. Read his speaches, past and present. Read his plans for ending the war and making America great agian. For those that would say, He can't win, I say , you've already lost. He is the JFK of our time. Minus the Kennedy money. 67 votes? Hear what he has to say about that, if your not afraid. Whats the matter? He's not good looking enough? You like NAFTA? Then maybe you shouldn't visit his site. Hear what he has to say about immigration. Health care? I guess he's just not warmonger enough for you people. STRENGTH THROUGH PEACE. Whats so funny about that? There are some who would agree with me, and to the others I say, If you vote for anyone else, well you get what you deserve. Go on living your lives with your two nine to five jobs that barely keep your head above water, and no health care. Yeah, If your slammin Dennis, without at least giving him a fair shake, then what does that make you? He is thoughtful, intelligent,kind, articulate, and smart as hell to boot. This is gonna be the most important election of our time. So lets vote him in and then vote in a CONGRESS and SENATE that will help him make American great agian. This is the time for change and Kucinich is the MAN who can make it happen. Just give him a little of your attention. I don't think you'll be dissapointed. GIVE EM HELL DENNIS! Truth and honesty is what counts for me.
If I could ad on to my post, the second on this thread:
it's one thing to not have stomach for a war. It's another to go around preaching and promoting a war the warmongers think is so vital, must be won "at any cost" (except when it costs them personally), pointing fingers attacking others calling them unamerican unpatriotic etc, and then do nothing yourself to contribute. Oh wait what did you do, you proclaimed to all that "i'm behind the president." Wow, right in line with men and women serving in uniform. What a heroic warrior one is with the bumper sticker who stands and says im behind the president no matter how poorly he conducts this war, nor how half assed his efforts are. They are truly brave, noble and patriotic.
the conservative idea for winning the war is that if we would just get bumper stickers and stand behind a President who wants to half ass the war as much as we do, somehow Iraq is going to develop into a Utopia where the Sunni and Shia stop hating each other, and where the peoples of the mid-east will just decide they love us all of a sudden! It's a perfect plan. And to think all you need is a bumper sticker, and an opinion to win the war!!! or at least it makes you a better and more patriotic American, right? Now this is the model for wars of the 21st century.
Excellent point JKENNY.
I was just talking to a good friend who's computer is currenty down and her opinion on this is: If congress refuses to use their powers of impeachment and for other matters of great importance, why even bother having a Congress, just let the administration have whatever they wish and save the money we waste on a Congress.___ Kathyodat is correct.
Well, except for the saving money we waste on Congress, the rest is already in effect.
We're inmates in an insane asylum run by Nurse Bushit.
if you know anything about PNAC, you will know that there has never been any thought of leaving iraq. they are following the document to a tee. it is, and always has been about the oil. everything else has been nothing but lies. you can forget any thoughts about them leaving. whoever sits on that oil, holds the trump card, and they are firmly entrenched. mission accomplished.
JKenney: which Senator is our most likely choice to lobby to lead the filibuster on future Iraq spending bills? If we all start emailing our "target Senator" maybe he/she will get the courage to take up the fight. Too bad Dennis isn't a Senator.
Let me know. I will send out emails to everyone I know to get this wave going.
Now is the time, I believe that Bush wants another 54 billion.
We can start the revolution, right here, right now!
Bush never finished a thing in his life, why should this be any different. It's his nature, and nobody is gonna change that.
MRFOAD, you say Bush wants another 54 billion.
The article says $200 billion. ___ Oh, never mind,__ I got it. ____Bush wants another $54 billion! __ Silly me.
50 ways to leave Iraq (pronto)
1- House does not pass appropriations bill. End of story as all appropriations bills must originate in the House
2-40 senators filibuster Iraq appropriation bill
3-50
51 senators pass appropriation with time lines. Bush vetoes. Congress then sends him 1 month appropriation bill. Repeat as necessary
MRFOAD: There in lies the problem. Those senators who are running for president will most likely not be willing to carry the load. I wish Barack Obama would step forward and be our guy, but I doubt it. I wish Hillary would show a little back bone but she won't. I guess, as odd as it sounds, Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, a Rebublican who is out spoken against the war and who has recently announced that he will not run for re-election to the senate (nor for president)might be the best hope, but I doubt he would do it either. We find ourselves in the same situation as after the 2000 stolen election when NOBODY in the senate would sign on as a sponsor to an effort from the Congressional Black Caccus to challenge the legality of that election.
Are we finally reduced to babbling endlessly about "winning" or "losing" this phoney war? (I thought Babylon was in Iraq)It's not as if we have (or ever had) any say what the plutocracy chooses to spend our taxes on. Not many of us, including myself, have the stomach to refuse to pay taxes to this murderous government. But soon, thanks to Peak Oil,Global Warming and, perhaps, the Law of Karma, many if not most of us will be among the unemployed. The coming worldwide economic depression may eventually starve this Fascist Corporate Government of that which it needs the most: the submission of the People.
A main characteristic of the neocons is their proclivity to project. Almost every time they criticize somebody, they describe one
of their own faults in a code not hard to decipher.
John McCain is a good example, simply because he seems nicer than the others. No matter how softly he speaks, though, ever lowering his voice, he can't disguise his basic projective flaw.
When McCain describes opposite viewers as defeatist, it is because of his own demons of defeat hanging from his throat. When he
says to the majority contrarians, "I understand your frustration," he means that he understands that he himself is frustrated, as he well should be, never having quite exceeded his training.
What real contrarians actually feel, of course—moral indignation—is much greater than a mewling and puking force.
On the Diane Rehm show, when McCain automatically began like Quaggenbush and the others to describe the grim results of precipitous withdrawal Diane Rehm said, "But haven't those things already happened?"
"But it will get much worse," McCain said.
How does he—or anyone—know that? And why don't these neocons know that for every minute we stay, it WILL get MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE!?
Perhaps Diane Rehm and others will say something along those lines soon. And if all prospects are grim (let's say "equally grim"
for the sake of argument, but which I can't accept for a second given that people throughout the world hate us more every day),
let's get out, now.
We'll be OUT—the one improvement possible.
"We're kicking ass in Iraq,"
Unfortunately, it's your own soldiers asses that you are kicking.
If congress refuses to put forward a war funding bill, wont the Repuglies just get the money by selling more weapons to the Iranians al la Daddy Bush, Poindexter, Olie North, and Negroponte?
I have to agree with texrey. Kucinich is the ONLY candidate that has consistently voted against this war AND the funding. He is a candidate who does not believe war is the answer. He has better ideas!!! This country cannot continue having wars, killing people in foreign countries because of their resources without regard for them, their country, our planet and our atmosphere. We better start thinking about these things real soon or it won't matter WHAT
. . . or it won't matter WHAT we're fighting for. There will be no planet left.
#
jdmlist September 13th, 2007 4:59 pm
Bush never finished a thing in his life, why should this be any different. It's his nature, and nobody is gonna change that.
I think he used to finish the booze and drugs.
Of course, for every troop he brings home - he'll authorize two more mercenaries......I mean contractor.
How can one have a "stomach" to pay taxes to a murderous government?
As many comments point-out but none flat-out say, the federal government is illegitimate. In a democratic-republic, the wishes of the majority are to be granted, and these wishes become known through opinion polls and other forms of public input. The public has resoundingly stated again and again that it desires the termination of the Iraqi Holocaust. By refusing to do what the majority desires, Congress is now illegitimate and joins the already illegitimate executive branch. Thus a power-vacuum is formed that the states can fill by fulfilling the will of the majority--this is exactly why the Governator vetoed the election resolution, to staunch that will from being articulated as further proof that the federal government is illegitimate. The states fulfill this will by withholding tax and other monetary transfers from the state to fed in a wholesale nullification of the Holocaust. The "power of the purse" must be taken away by the People who fill that purse. Individuals can start by filling out a new W-4 form whereby they claim numerous withholding allowances. Folks might also decide to become "independent earners" not subject to any SSI or Medicaare withholding as those monies will be used to fund the Holocaust just as easilly as your withholding taxes.
Paying money to the federal government has for years now fueled the deaths of millions and the destitution of billions. It's no different than paying money to a mafia hitman. Good Germans and Good Americans pay their taxes, we're told by two federal governments from two different eras that were/are trying to accomplish the same thing--WORLD DOMINATION.
Just heard the Chickenhawk-in-Chief give his address on TV. More of the same with a sop tossed to those of us who opposed this insanity from the beginning: he's going to cut the troop level down to where it was before his vaunted surge. And finally he touched on the subject which has been taboo to discuss--the real neocon plan--to occupy Iraq indefinitely. He tied the future well-being of Iraq more intimately than he has in the past with our own well-being. This fits in with the original plan for the New American Century to maintain US hegemony in the world. What he didn't bring up was the catastrophic condition of the US economy, the plummeting of the dollar against the euro, the breaking of our military due to long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Chickenhawk-in-Chief is still living in his neocon bubble, but reality is closing in on him. Congress must still be pressed to impeach both Bush and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, Feith, Bolten, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of the sorry lot of neocons must be hounded with lawsuits and other harrassments until they can't enjoy a single day in peace for the disaster they have brought on this country and on Iraq.
Evidently the bottom line appears to be: if you're against the war, then don't join the military.
canukchuck-- You asked why the Bushies wouldn't just pull another Iran-Contra to fund the war. Good question-- Reagan-Bush specifically tried to get around a congressional directive against funding the Contras by using a money-laundering scheme-- proceeds of arms sales to Iran (!) went to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
The big difference is that was COVERT. By contrast, Bush can't keep it a secret if he wants to spend billions per month prolonging the war, even if its all done with private contractors recruited from Israel and South Africa. To do this openly would be to subvert the constitution far more directly than Bush has done yet-- it would force a constitutional show-down.
I think this is part of what scares the dems. They are scared that if they push back against Bush too hard, he will stir up a nationalist furor and assume even more powers, i.e., one more step down the road to totalitarianism, and congress will become even more irrelevant than they are now. The problem is that, by not standing up to Bush, the same thing is happening, just less dramatically.
Lobe: "Petraeus was indeed able to cite statistics that showed a substantial decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad — the surge's main tactical goal — if not the rest of Iraq."
Why can't the hosebag journalists do their homework and provide some balance? It's always "The Official Source Said..." with no counter arguments.
Anyway, it was either here or Democracy Now (maybe the excellent Nir Rosen interview on 8/21) that I heard all about the spin on Iraqi death counts as a measure of the "Surge" 's supposed effectiveness. Shots to the head were not counted as they were attributed to criminal activity. Deaths due to car bombs are not counted. There are several other types of excluded deaths meant to artificially reduce the elevated death rate since the surge. And what Petraeus and Lobe negligently failed to state is that sectarian violence is down in Baghdad because the Shias have conducted a thorough ethnic cleansing of the city, and there are hardly any more Sunnis there anymore. Some fucking success!
I no longer listen to NPR. An entire waste of time and pretzel mind fuck to listen to them. Just CD, Flashpoints, and Democracy Now for the most part.
It troubles me that generally reliable (and non-partisan) alternate media sites on the web such as Common Dreams peddle the same lies that the Democratic Party spreads through the mainstream media. The idea that Dems need a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to stop this war is an outright lie. This war can be stopped if the Democratic leadership in the House simply decided that Bush is not going to get another dollar until he sits down to negotiate an end to the War, complete with a timetable for a rapid withdrawal. If Pelosi would simply work toward uniting a majority of House Democrats around the strategy of cutting off all funding until Bush changes course, she could justify the use of the near dictatorial powers that the majority party enjoys in the House, to prevent any war funding measure from ever reaching the House floor for a vote. End of story. This notion that Dems need 2/3 of members of Congress to be "with them" is simply part of a PR campaign designed to shift focus onto the Republicans for the upcoming election, portraying them as the key obstacle to ending this War and Occupation. That PR strategy is embraced and perpetrated by such pathetic DNC front groups as Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which target Republicans only in their quest to elect more Democrats, all the while keeping the War chugging along full steam ahead. Haven't you heard that Dems will do best if the bodies keep piling up at a steady clip through the '08 election? Equally important for groups such as AAEI is the task of alienating and disenfranchising the non-partisan anti-war community, represented by United for Peace and Justice and its member groups, which are interfering with the Democrats' campaign of lies and decpetion about the War. Those pesky citizens of conscience need to get with the program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hQB3eYUOU
Please watch this movie. You can download it. zeitgeist movie
[I had to take out the URL or for some strange reason I couldn't post this comment]
There is no intention of ever leaving. I call this scared Libertarian. We need to defend the Constitution so I'm voting for Ron Paul. Now I know you all may think I'm nuts, but please just watch the video before you make up your mind.
Agree with what 'Texrey' had to say about Kucinich "Dennis Kucinich HAS the answer".
If you want to stop the influence that big money as on the political process,e.g. Clinton,Obama,Edwards, start by voting Kucinich!
Send a message that we the Americans want someone that answers to us, not to the big money interests.
We need to send a real message, and that is that we are tired of big money making our choices for us, and big media pushing them for them.
Adding to JKenney's point @ 2:19 pm, it seems to me that any senator who thinks the war can be stopped ONLY when they've achieved a supermajority, is clearly too ignorant of constitutionally-mandated congressional powers to continue in his position.
We should be pointing this out to all our senators. Not that they'll change policy as a result. But at least they'll stop offering such a lame excuse.
Ways to fight back: I have recently stopped all donations to any colleges or universities that I have attended until they take a stand against the immoral occupation of Iraq. Institutions of higher learning should not be complicit in a disaster that has killed almost a million Iraqi citizens, and displaced over three million from their homes. Position statements of our institutions can have great political significance and until they are forthcoming, we do not need to be sending any donations or alumni fees to our alma maters.
TO THE DEMS
I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I'm 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony
The only hope for the USA to get a democracy is for the people to take a stand. It has to come from organised labour and the learning institutions and it is a long hard slog. We in Britain before WW2 were downtrodden cap dofferes but the rank and file in the forces during the war were to a limited extent free of the shackles of autocracy.
We kicked warmonger Churchill out and voted in a Labour government, all the coal mines, railways and many other essential services were taken out of private hands for the benifit of all.
Of course socialism is a swear word in the USA, of course it is but go to some of the socialist countries and see for yourselves which is the system which benifits the majority and not the minority. It's all very well talking about working hard and success will follow, for a few it does but the majority just keep on working and working long past the time for retirement.
I've lived in many countries, some were poor countries and of course have poor but the USA is vastly rich yet has an enormous number of poor, here in Florida almost every abode is a plastic shed better known as a mobile home, very apt since they become very mobile in a strong wind.
Time to switch off FOX, CNN and public radio propoganda and form a political party which truly represents the people.
Want to lose sleep at night? Here's something that I haven't heard discussed at all: Say the Democrats get their way. Funding is cut off and Bush is forced to withdraw. Considering how the administration has horribly bungled every facet of this war an occupation, how can they be entrusted with planning an orderly withdrawal of our troops? Imagine the consequences to U.S. security if they do their usual slipshod job? Can they be trusted to not screw it up ON PURPOSE and then blame it all on the Democrats? To demand our withdrawal without considering these questions is the hight of irresponsibility.
It could also explain some of the foot-dragging that's going on, because introducing these questions on the floor of congress would force Americans to address the nightmarish truth: That the executive branch of the U.S. government is occupied by ruthless ideologues who will literally stop at nothing to gain control over middle east oil. That "facts" no longer matter. That when examined objectively, Bush and Cheney are insane at best, and "evil" at worst. This is not a rhetorical question: I could be wrong, but WHAT IF I'm right? Is sociopathy grounds for impeachment?
Still no discussion? Ok, keep writing your congressmen. Keep on whining about the Democrats. Even if they "win", the Commander in Chief will be in charge of the withdrawal. Sleep tight.
To mustbefree. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who is running as a Republican. He is not going to go along with the corporate line, so the media won't cover the guy. He knows what is going on since he wants to get the troops out of Iraq and get rid of the Federal Reserve,
a private bank that controls our interest rates, and loans money to the US Government at interest.
Google it. Watch "The Money Masters," "Why We Fight," "America Freedom to Fascism," "Zeitgeist"
Ron Paul wants to close off the boarder, get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, CODEX, and the National ID Card that passed. This is Orwellian and scary as hell.