 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: MISSION CREEP...Is it just me, or did Bush just ratchet back up our ambitions for Iraq? According to the Associated Press, "The United States will not withdraw its forces from Iraq before its mission of building a stable democracy is complete, President Bush said Tuesday." It seemed like in recent months, administration officials had bowed to reality and dropped the democracy talk, saying instead that we'll stay until Iraq has a stable government, capable of defending itself and not acting as a haven for terrorists (goals that could have been achieved, in other words, by not invading in the first place, but whatever.) But now we're again being told that the mission is to create a "stable democracy" and that Bush is not going to "pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." Since Iraqi democracy pretty clearly isn't coming any time soon, we're essentially being told that we'll be in Iraq at least until January 2009. Someone better tell James Baker nevermind. UPDATE: Scratch that. I just checked the transcript of the speech. Bush never said anything about democracy in Iraq. It's just an incredibly sloppy mistake by the AP. I guess this counts as good news. —Zachary Roth 5:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (88)
Comments
We will leave Iraq when 1 of 2 conditions are met: 1) Iraq is a free democracy. 2) All US military forces are dead. 2 is way ahead of 1 as we speak. Posted by: POed Lib on November 28, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK"The United States will not withdraw its forces from Iraq before its mission of building a stable democracy is complete, President Bush said Tuesday." Did GeeDubya happen to mention how he intended to do this? Obviously, this is more of the same. One thing he needs to have Karl Rove or Pickles (Laura) explain to him is that the country isn't buying what he's selling, and that he ought to simply stick to pardoning Turkeys & hosting teeball on the WH lawn, tasks for which he's barely capable of adequately handling without Poppy-41's staff swooping in to clean up after. He has no clue how he's destroying his own party right now. Why does GeeDubya hate America?
I think one of the "lessons" the GOP is taking out of the election results is that they weren't "tough enough" and lost their base. Of course this s pretty far off the mark, the real loss was in the middle and not on their right edge, but hey, if they want to believe this, who's to discourage that? Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on November 28, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINKAin't a snowball's chance in hell, George. Posted by: CN on November 28, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKSomeone please give this man the $500M he needs so he can establish his think tank in SMU and not bother the rest of us. Posted by: gregor on November 28, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKIf that was not bad enough, Bush also stated that al-Qaeda, also known as "20 guys in a cave with a camcorder," is now behind all of the violence in Iraq. Not in his wildest dreams could Bin Laden have hoped for a better publicist than Bush. Come to think of it, all of the publicists out here on the West Coast are probably getting a bit nervous, since Bush will be looking for a new job in a couple of years. If he can turn Bin Laden into jihadi superman, imagine what he could do for Britney Spears. Posted by: hank on November 28, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKHe probably just got a set of old message points. Going to have to execute the prep staff. Posted by: Martin on November 28, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKDubya is travelling in a way different time zone, and has been for a week or so. I wonder if his staff was trying to get him out of town for some time after the elections so that they could figure out what to do next. It looks like the Decider is spoiling the plans of his adult minders. BTW, can we keep Cheney in Riyahd for the duration? Posted by: troglodyte on November 28, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINKEveryone knows Bush is nuts. He's going to keep us in Iraq until he leaves office or he is forced to pull us out. Because he can. That's all, there is no goal. Posted by: grytpype on November 28, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINKSorry, that was Cheney in *Riyadh* -- I wouldnt want him to get stuck in a hotel room without Fox News. Posted by: troglodyte on November 28, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKI'm starting to wonder whether a Nixon solution isn't the best we can hope for. The guy's never been right, and as the situation gets worse his detachment from reality becomes increasingly more dangerous. He himself seems to be deteriorating, which is scary given the low baseline we started with. Theoretically the rational conservatives would be the ones asking him to step down, but GHWB would never do that, and few other Republicans would dare defy him. Perhaps we can hope that the military will start nullifying the Commander in Chief's orders. Posted by: John Emerson on November 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKBy so declaring, Bush has pretty much rendered it impossible for any Republican Presidential candidate to win the primaries without "staying the course" in Iraq. Republican activists, of course, will back Bush to the hilt. No candidate can seem less squeamish than Bush about using force and expect to win. (I'm talking about you, Mr. McCain.) Given how "staying the course" was received by the electorate in 2006, how popular do you think it's going to seem in 2008, after two further years of chaos and suffering? Bush is obviously more than happy to pull the entire Republican Party down with him as he sinks forever into the deep sea. But really, how could it be otherwise, given their insistence for years on the equation: Bush=Conservative movement=Republican Party=Iraq war 2008 is all over but the shouting. Posted by: frankly0 on November 28, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINKMaybe I'm being too cynical, but the more strident Bush gets, the more I think a major sea-change is coming. Possibly a radical new definition for any one of the following words: stable, democracy, complete, withdraw, not. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINKHaven't you ever had a boss like that? A project starts, and they tell you to do one thing, then the next time it comes up, they want twice as much, so you get to work on the twice as much and the next time you talk, he/she doesn't even want as much as the first time. Usually guys like this don't make it past mid-management, but there's an exception to every rule, right? Posted by: Scott Herbst on November 28, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINKI'm starting to wonder whether a Nixon solution isn't the best we can hope for. ... Perhaps we can hope that the military will start nullifying the Commander in Chief's orders. Bush is too stubborn for a Nixon solution. (or rather, even if Bush *did* resign, we'd still have Cheney, who is the real driving force behind this whole war-profiteering enterprise). Most likely your second option is the only thing that will fix things. The Sonthi Boonyaratglin solution. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKAt Harvard, George thought Dilbert was the Cliff Notes. Posted by: jerry on November 28, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINKUsually guys like this don't make it past mid-management, but there's an exception to every rule, right? Not so much an exception as a whole 'nother rule which trumps the one you're talking about: nepotism. When your daddy is George Herbert Walker Bush, all sorts of extra priveleges are accorded you. One of which being that you're sheltered from the vicisitudes of the free market, which would have relegated GWB to some lackluster backwater long ago, but for all of daddy's connections. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINKWhy should this surprise you Zach? How many times now has Bush changed the mission? He'll let us know when he gets it right. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKIt seemed like in recent months, administration officials had bowed to reality Well, obviously Dubya's put a stop to that! Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKBush is an automaton. His speechwriters and handlers program him with kitschy statements, which his imperfect circuitry stores and, on occasion, mis-assembles. He mistakes these phrases for character and leadership and hopes everyone else will too. Unless you are a courtier, what the machine says is irrelevant. Juan Cole explains: This process sounds so muddled because Washington is flailing around without the slightest idea of what could be done, practically speaking, in Iraq, according to Time: "Several officials who are in touch with commission members said that with violence appearing to spiral out of control in Iraq, the group has been flummoxed about finding a solution. "There's complete bewilderment as to what to do," one official said. "They're very frustrated. They can't come up with anything. For the last couple months, they've been thrashing around, calling people, trying to find ideas." The real reason for the muddle is, as I said yesterday, that the Bush administration has not defined a realistic and achievable set of military goals in Iraq. Its original political goal of establishing a unified Iraq with a pro-US government that would let oil contracts on a favorable basis for Houston, would ally with Israel, and would form a springboard for further US pressure on Iran and Syria, is completely unrealistic. Cheney's inability to let go of those objectives is the biggest problem we have in Iraq. Move on. Posted by: bellumregio on November 28, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINKHank and others have it right - Bush is a mentally ill religious zealot with delusions of grandeur. Word is that he is also depressed after the midterm thumpin'. The Democratic leadership needs to begin impeachment proceedings ASAP. Posterity wll thank them for doing so. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 28, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINKGolden Boy is just trying to set the stage for weeping about how we failed him. Posted by: cld on November 28, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINKUmmm, look, ummm, I think I am going to need for you to umm, define what that mission is for sure for us, mmmm okay? And work this weekend. What is the feaking mission? What is it?? Can you impose stability or reconstruction or social comity on the unwilling in a civil war? Posted by: Sparko on November 28, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINKGolden Boy is just trying to set the stage for weeping about how we failed him. Close, cld....tbrosz tipped the hand months ago: Dolchstosslegende. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKWonder why Bush Jr doesnt go to the battle field? If he wants our volunteer to die for him then he could at least lead them. Sparko, The mission is detailed on the new cover sheet for the TPS reports. Ddin't you get that memo? Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINKZachery thinks Bush should just designate stability as his goal, rather than stabililty and democracy. I don't think it makes much difference. Getting a stable democracy in Iraq looks like a long shot, but getting a stable non-democracy is even more unlikely. To get a stable non-democracy, some group would have to overthrow the Constitutional government and then defeat all its enemies. But, no group is remotely powerful enough to do that. BTW Bush is constrained in what he says. If he publicly disavowed his support for a democratic Iraq, that statement would materially weaken the government and encourage the insurgents. IMHO he's right to express full support the democratic government of Iraq unless and until he's ready to pull the plug. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINKIMHO he's right to express full support the democratic government of Iraq unless and until he's ready to pull the plug. Really guys, think Rumsfeld: nothing says you're getting the axe like a ringing endorsement from the Prez. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKConservative Deflator; Nobody seems to want to accept this truth, because it means accepting that 60 million voters bought into this con-job, the greatest crime in human history. It's easier to ascribe this to "madness" or "incompetence". Bush is the patsy to deflect attention from the criminals at the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Aramco, FoxNews, and others, who bought and paid for this presidency, as an opportunity to drain the most successful Liberal Democracy in the world of its prosperity, so that they can rule as a corporate oligarchy, unthreatened by any state power. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINKThe piece below, "The Ghost of Arafat" was written almost two years ago, Jan 11, 2005. It called for the US to negotiate a political settlement with an unbeatable foe, the Sunni Iraqi insurgency, which such plan is now emerging. Politically, it still sounds like a defeatist and unpatriotic proposal which might go a long way toward explaining why it has not heretofore been much mentioned by the press or others. Although Don Rumsfeld in a press briefing did make a direct reference quite some time ago to approaching the Sunni insurgents. It was a Rummy dry, acerbic witty triple zinger. He said. Its not like you can just pick up the phone and call these guys.
Iraq is now a civil war. We have simply chosen a side. References to Vietnam are tactically correct, but passe politically. The analogies are Israel/Palestine, American Revolution and Northern Ireland. The ghost of Arafat will appear from the Sunni side and George B. to his enormous bile-choking displeasure will have to deal. Were that it were otherwise but this is written. Fielding one per cent of the Sunni fighting-age men as active insurgents/freedom fighters with three percent as cadre (40,000) creates a stalemate. They can not dislodge us and our Shia forces nor can we pacify them. Personally I would find this leader (or group) now and begin the next phase. Offer them administrative control of electric and water reconstruction projects. They create no-kill, no-maim zones, implement the projects, Halliburton yes, Halliburton no, who cares, and we release the money on a quasi 'completion' basis. This gambit lacks all pride and ego but we do get to stay a while. Sarge might say "Light em if you got em," for a change. (cognitorex blogspot com) Posted by: Craig Johnson on November 28, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKI'm telling you guys, it's James Buchanan all over again. The south seceded, and Buchanan totally didn't deal with it, he just ran out the clock on the last 4 months of his Presidency. George Bush is doing the exact same thing with Iraq. Iraq is gonna be something for his successor to make the hard choices on, not him. He is running out the clock until January 20, 2009. This guy is a piece of work. He does nothing right either during or after Hurricane Katrina, Now we've got a gulf coast that's still in ruins and tens of thousands living in trailer FEMAtowns. With Katrina, he out-Hoovers Hoover, and now with Iraq, he's out-Buchananing Buchanan. Simply amazing. This is a level of incompetence unrivaled in American Presidencies. At this point, I'm just waiting for him to, I dunno, bring back the gold standard or invade Canada or something equally ludicrous. Posted by: anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKWell, that is certainly a Miss Emily Litella moment. Posted by: Wendy on November 28, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone noticed how terrible John Warner has looked in recent weeks, even before the election? He's just the Republican to be in a position to hear all sorts of crap, and one of the few who would be revolted by it. What could he have been hearing? Posted by: cld on November 28, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINKWhy do people say things like "Iraqi democracy pretty clearly isn't coming any time soon"? They've already had parliamentary elections, and they're currently operating under the 2005 constitution. Obviously, the federal government has very limited control, and there's real uncertainty over whether the current constitutional framework will last, but it simply isn't accurate to say that Iraqi democracy isn't coming. Iraq may not be a liberal democracy, but it is a democracy. Posted by: Greg on November 28, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKGregory, I had forgotten about the Myth of the Stab in the Back, but it's a fundamental of the conservative working mind. It helps to organize their selfishness, paranoia, self-righteousness and incapacity to understand anyone but themselves with their self-pity, of which they have an infinitude. (And it gratifies their sense of drama and self-entertainment, just to see what a big noise it makes while they can go on about being in the right of it) Posted by: cld on November 28, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKA majority of Iraqis want us out. Democracy means we leave. See, Georgie? Posted by: olds88 on November 28, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKRemo Williams is my favorite cheesey movie. Non-sequiter of course. Just throwing it out there. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINKolds88: A majority of Iraqis want us out. Democracy means we leave. Actually, representative democracy (such as the US and Iraq have) means the democratically elected government speaks for the country. E.g., Congress approved Bush's overthrow of Saddam, not an opinion poll. The elected government of Iraq wants us to stay. Actually, I think that the preznit's use of the word "mission" is code for "dead Saddam". I'd be willing to bet money (if I had any) that once Saddam is executed, it'll be a whole-different ballgame. Maybe Halliburton will build some ovens for the Shiite militias to use. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINKGee, another "mistake" by the AP. Will wonders never cease. Sure, the Iraqi government wants us to stay. And they'll keep wanting us to stay, until they figure out a way to escape. It's starting to look like a rooftop scenario lies in our future. Posted by: serial catowner on November 28, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKHmmmm... It's just an incredibly sloppy mistake by the AP. Wasn't it just the other day that it's being noted that there is no substantiation to the AP news story related to dousing Sunni's coming out of a mosque with kerosene and lighting them afire? From an interview with a police official who doesn't seem to exist? Geeez... What's going on with the AP?? Is my news getting manipulated so flagrantly that it's becoming overtly obvious? i.r.c.p.j: I think it may well be both. However, your analysis has a lot of validity on it's own. TCD Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 28, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINKOceania has always been at war with Eurasia. And the doublespeak is double-plus good. * there is no civil war in Iraq Since Zach Roth writes for TNR, I assume he also advanced the Dominos of Democracy justification for the invasion of Iraq - before it became unfashionable and a hard sell, of course. (This could be incorrect, and feel free to correct it if so, but it's hard to see TNR hiring someone who doesn't agree that the existence, anywhere, of "Muslims with a Bad Attitude" justifies the overthrow of governments, and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people). If so, Roth supported the invasion of Iraq in order to "Spread Democracy", or some such malarkey. So what's the problem now? Why criticize Bush for returning the scope of the mission to where it was a few months ago? Wouldn't everyone at TNR, AEI, PNAC, etc. be happy? Posted by: luci on November 28, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINKZachary, Given the White House's history of Orwellian rewriting of history (example: they went back and re-edited the video of the "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier to move the image up, leave a black bar on the bottom, and wipe out the "Mission Accomplished" banner above George Bush's head) why are you so certain that the AP made an incredibly sloppy mistake? Isn't it just as likely that Bush went off-script, and the transcript doesn't reflect his actual remarks? I suggest trying to locate audio or video, to see if an apology to the AP might be in order. Bush also stated that al-Qaeda, also known as "20 guys in a cave with a camcorder," So Bush is saying that as Decider-in-Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever seen he just can't seem to defeat 20 guys in a cave. If they didn't have that camcorder, he just might have been able to pull it off. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKThere will be no cooperation from the Bush administration with the incoming congress. The dirty secrets of this administration are going deep underground with no intentions of changing. The stonewalling will be quite evident in 2007. It will become necessary to make an example of Bush. One doesnt trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and just walk away! I anticipate War Crimes proceedings. We will leave when Iran has a functioning stable ally as a neighbor, paid for with the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi children. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINKE.g., Congress approved Bush's overthrow of Saddam, not an opinion poll. Another lie, "ex-liberal" -- no surprise there. Congress authorized use of force if certain conditions were met. They were not, so Congress did not "approve Bush's overthrow of Saddam". The elected government of Iraq wants us to stay. Well, sure, I'll grant you that, since they'll be the first against the wall. Hardly a ringing endorsement. You embarrass yourself, "ex-liberal." Why do you bother? Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINKBut Bush did say this: Bush: "There is one thing Im not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." -- Josh Marshall Hurry up poll numbers, dip into twenty's, Bushie and Cheney have got to go bye-bye. As if you needed another reason to despise the Iraq War. According to The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) the United States could have ended world hunger for less than is being spent every year in Iraq. Makes you proud to be an American. Posted by: bob on November 28, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKHow much advancement toward clean energy and independence could we buy for $3 grand a second? Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINKZachary, the AP was both sloppy and correct. As far as the mission being defined as democracy in Iraq, they were referring to Bush's statements at a press conference in Estonia where Bush did in fact use the word "democracy" several times in describing the goal in Iraq: PRESIDENT BUSH: Deb, there's all kinds of speculation about what may be or not happening. What you're seeing on TV has started last February. It was an attempt by people to foment sectarian violence, and no -- no question it's dangerous there, and violent. And the Maliki government is going to have to deal with that violence, and we want to help them do so. It's in our interest that we succeed. A democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an important part of defeating the radicals and totalitarians that can't stand the emergence of a democracy. One of the interesting things that's taking place -- and people have got to understand what's happening -- is when you see a young democracy beginning to emerge in the Middle East, the extremists try to defeat its emergence.
Unless the mission changed between the morning press conference and the afternoon speech. Anything is possible with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge. Posted by: Clap Louder on November 28, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINKIs this the same speech as the one where Bush blamed all of Iraq's woes on terrorism by al Qaeda? I guess it was al Qaeda is Estonia, democracy in Latvia. Hm, where's he going next? cyntax wrote: "Maybe I'm being too cynical, but the more strident Bush gets, the more I think a major sea-change is coming. Possibly a radical new definition for any one of the following words: stable, democracy, complete, withdraw, not." I suspect that President Bush is a true believer. Whether that is caused by ignorance, which is unlikely, or based on something like faith or even fear, the more people who have no responsibility for what happens clamor for him to give up, the more adamant he will become in seeing things through. In any case, it is incorrect to think of him as stupid or evil. He believes he is doing right. He might even be correct. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINKAnything is possible with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge.
That would be one of Homer Simpson's better lines. I teach 8th grade. I know my Simpsons. By the way, do you realize how easy the physics unit has become since that show came on? Nukes got kewl! When your daddy is George Herbert Walker Bush, all sorts of extra priveleges are accorded you. One of which being that you're sheltered from the vicisitudes of the free market, which would have relegated GWB to some lackluster backwater long ago, but for all of daddy's connections. Posted by: cyntax on November 28, 2006 at 6:10 PM I'm not saying he'd necessarily make a good president by any means, and I'm certainly not endorsing him for a future White House run, but Jeb Bush at least appears to be a competent governor (it's ironic that he talks like a George, while George sounds like a Jeb). Sort of reminds me of the old Hollywood mogul's comment when he heard Ronald Reagan was running for governor of California: "No, no, Jimmy Stewart for governor -- Ronald Reagan for best friend!" Oh, and regarding GWB's comment today, I paraphrase the old protest song: "Waist deep in the big desert...the big fool says to push on..." Posted by: Vincent on November 28, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINKI know my Simpsons. My ability to successfully use html tags on the other hand, obviously remains elusive. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK"Someone please give this man the $500M he needs so he can establish his think tank in SMU..." You can lead coke-whores to think tanks, but you can't make them think. He really is the Mission Creep, isn't he? Wish he would just stay the golf course and we'd be done with him already. "Now watch this drive" (to Damascus). Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK75% of Iraqis want us out, but their "representative" government wants us to stay? That pretty much spells bullshit, doncha think? Posted by: olds88 on November 28, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK Hm, where's he going next? WMD in Jordan? Nepeta, according to the NeoCon-American scorecard, I think the Jordanians are the good guys, along with the Saudis, Egyptians and Kuwaitis; Syria, Iran, and by extension, Southern Lebanon are the only places where you'll find those WMD's. Although Mr. Limbaugh wants to nuke the whole lot of 'em, so who really knows for sure. And Inquisitive, your html-tags may be bad, but your pom-poms are excellent. The key question is, do your eighth-graders really understand what Homer was talking about? By the time this gets sorted out, those 14 year-olds are going to be draft-eligible. Trashauler said: "75% of Iraqis want us out, but their "representative" government wants us to stay? That pretty much spells bullshit, doncha think?" In some places, it's called "representative democracy." Damn the luck. If things were run by plebiscite, we'd be getting somewhere - but then, after voting us out, they might vote to kill all the Sunnis or something. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 28, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKBush Advisers Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 A classified memorandum by President Bushs national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leaders position. The Nov. 8 memo was prepared for Mr. Bush and his top deputies by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and senior aides on the staff of the National Security Council after a trip by Mr. Hadley to Baghdad. The memo suggests that if Mr. Maliki fails to carry out a series of specified steps, it may ultimately be necessary to press him to reconfigure his parliamentary bloc, a step the United States could support by providing monetary support to moderate groups, and by sending thousands of additional American troops to Baghdad to make up for what the document suggests is a current shortage of Iraqi forces.
jay wrote: "It IS correct to think of him as stupid AND evil, Criminal as well. Just take a fair look at his record and you will be left in no doubt." I don't know the man personally. Are we talking about the official record or the reconstructed, augmented, strained and filtered, honest-to-God authentic record found amongst the blogs? lol. In any case, it is incorrect to think of him as stupid or evil. He believes he is doing right. TH, I respect your opinion on a number of subjects, but for me Bush's mendacity is too obvious to be ignored. I find how he treated General Shinseki to be particularly indicative of this. As one vet to another can you really tell me that someone who took Wolfowitz's recommendations for troop levels over General Shinseki's shouldn't have his intelligence questioned? I can still remember during the first Gulf War, when the ground war was winding down and we weren't yet sure if we were going to go all the way to Baghdad or not, I thought to myself that if we did go, I'd spend the next three years walking foot patrols in Baghdad while Iraqis took potshots at me. If a twenty year old redleg can see that as a very real possibility that far back, how come the CinC couldn't see it when it was right in front of him? Maybe cause he didn't want to. I'm sure he believes he's doing right but don't most people, even people who do pretty bad things, belive they're doing the right thing? Posted by: cyntax on November 29, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINKcyntax, I'll admit, I thought General Shinseki was probably correct. I recall when the question was asked and, though it was obvious the General didn't have a prepared answer, he was giving an honest opinion. But then, why is it assumed that the only reason General Shinseki was treated rudely was his answer to this question? I doubt very much that the President had a hand in it - such things are the province of the SECDEF, who usually doesn't need to justify his actions in such matters. But there were other areas of disagreement between General Shinseki and the SECDEF, as well as other Services, particularly about the pace of transformation, the scope of the IBCT (interim brigade combat team) concept, and development of the future combat system family of armored vehicles. Perhaps scuttlebutt is right and the comment got General Shinseki fired. I'd like to hear it from him - perhaps we will once Secretary Rumsfeld is gone. Posted by: Trashhauler on November 29, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINKMy heart sank as I watched Bush give his speech Tuesday. More stay the course bullshit. I turned the channel as I can't even stomach to listen to him anymore. This man is not fit to be county dogcatcher. How in the hell did he get to be President of the United States. We're doomed. Posted by: trublu on November 29, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINKWe aren't doomed yet - we're screwed - and we can see doomed from here, it's just one zip-code over - but the rezoning isn't official yet, since we had that election that suddenly isn't important and that was really a double-secret victory for the R's - while us silly Democrats are so stupid we think we actually won something. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINKTH, you're right that the SecDef is the one who would have had the authority to marginalize General Shinseki, but I really wonder if that would have been done without consulting with the Executive Branch. Though maybe it was the VP that greenlighted it? Still even if it wasn't at the President's behest, at some point the President has to bear responsibility for what his appointees do. As to the SecDef's other areas of conflict with the services, particularly around transformation, that certainly is a legitimate question. The Crusader program never should have seen the light of day for example. But I never saw evidence of Rumsfeld's ideas about transformation having anything behind them. Smaller, lighter, more technological-- all of that sounds good, but doesn't represent a coherent alternative. I only saw Rumsfeld proposing a knee-jerk opposition to large maneuver forces. A change would have been good, but that won't happen now. And really I always thought the administration didn't know jack about the military, starting with Condi's bullshit remark back in '99 about the 82nd Airborne having "better things to do than escort children to school" in Bosnia. Ah the irony of revisiting her remarks about nation building. Posted by: cyntax on November 29, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINKYou aren't watching the spin and CNN. Um. Now we we hear fearless leader saying I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. after his carrier landing, his shipboard strut and speech under the banner "Mission Accomplished", three years ago? It is fine to say "before the mission is complete", but what is the freakin' mission? Change Enduring Freedom to "Eternal Morphing Mission". Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINKwhite house transcripts are doctored from time to time, zach. check the audio if you want to be sure. not saying that's what happened in this case, but i wouldn't bet anything on the accuracy of any information from the white house - including transcripts. Posted by: exgop on November 29, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINKWell, he didn't say that the mission was democracy in Iraq. He just said that the troops weren't coming out until the mission was complete, and then went on to remark that he didn't share the widespread pessimism about the possibility of democracy there. So it looks like we're getting another application of the Saddam-alQaeda non-link linking technique. Posted by: SqueakyRat on November 29, 2006 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINKbut what is the freakin' mission? When free people everywhere are free to have the freedom to freely join the community of free nations. Obviously, you need to stay the course in order to see things through. I think that's pretty clear. Posted by: skip intro on November 29, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINKRe: The U.S. will be in Iraq until January, 2009. January 2009?? Are you serious? There's no way on earth we won't be there until long after that. Gerald Scorse Posted by: Gerald Scorse on November 29, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINKWould anyone deny that al Qaeda is not in Iraq now? Would you deny that if we leave they will declare a great victory? A lot of Iraqis have stuck their necks out for democracy. Any decent plan for withdrawal should include a plan to evacuate all the refugees before they are slaughtered. Does the honorable Nancy Pelosi have such a plan? Posted by: Mike Cook on November 29, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINKDoes the honorable newly elected Republican for the 33rd District of the State of Washington, have a plan? Oops, the incumbent Democratic candidate won by a landslide. Never mind. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKFeel very safe, folks - Col Mike "Bomber Harris" Cook is at the controls of the B-1 taking off from McChord AFB near Tacoma, WA to wreak havoc on those Islamos - Bombs away, Mike. Good Hunting. Posted by: stupid git on November 29, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINKAny decent plan for withdrawal should include a plan to evacuate all the refugees before they are slaughtered. Does the honorable Nancy Pelosi have such a plan? Why should she? First, she's won't become Speaker until January, and second, in this country the Speakers of the House do not implement tactical plans. The plan for evacuation of refugees must be implemented and carried out by the Executive, that is, George Bush. But I love the desperate, sweaty wingnut rationalizing -- now that it's all gone to hell, blame the Democrats for not rescuing the victims of Republican malfeasance! "Sure, we fucked it up, but you didn't have a plan for how to clean up our mess!" Posted by: Stefan on November 29, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINKnow that it's all gone to hell, blame the Democrats for not rescuing the victims of Republican malfeasance! Oh, they won't stop there in blaming Democrats, Stefan. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINKnow that it's all gone to hell, blame the Democrats for not rescuing the victims of Republican malfeasance! Oh, they won't stop there in blaming Democrats, Stefan. Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Bad Jim. I thought the US mission in Iraq was completed three years ago with President Bush's appearance on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln and "Mission Accomplished" proudly displayed on the . . . "conning tower?" What an appropriately named place to hang such a banner. It's clear that President Bush changes and fine-tunes the US mission in Iraq weekly following his staff briefing and a look at the polls. How has this mission evolved? "Find the WMDs." "Stop al Qaeda away from our shores." "Spread democracy." "Create a stable government in Iraq." "Do whatever it takes to win." "Honor the sacrifices of our troops." At this point President Bush is basically just scrambling to salvage some scraps of credibility for himself, our military and our foreign service. He broke Humpty Dumpty and can't put it back together. But before we try to find honor in sweeping up the pieces we will have to go through an extented period of denial that Humpty Dumpty is broken. This way Bush gets to blame Democrats for what happens to Iraq after they start pulling troops out. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKPretty rotten to blame the AP for a mistake, and call them sloppy, and then not acknowledge that no mistake was made, except by The Roth, who was making a pretty weak, strained point to begin with. Must everyone blame the media for even non-existent "mistakes." Posted by: Temple Stark on November 30, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
