"if he gives up on the surge, what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction?"

Complain that the Democratic controlled Congress isn't fixing it fast enough?

Okay, lets say 20,000 are surged. We know that most will be made up of people staying longer and others who are trying to rest and retrain sent back earlier.

What are they going to do? Will they be rested, trained and supplied to do anything worth doing?

Are those 20,000 all grunts on patrol (which means there has to be another 50,000 supporting them.

Or does the 20,000 mean 5,000 grunts and 15,000 support?

And again, given the burn rate of supplies, what equipment will these brave soldiers have available to them? When will that quipment be in country (4-6 months from the "go date")?

No wonder there are generals who are not impressed.

Those of us who predicted this were dismissed and called cowards. "This time anti-war is anti American!" (Isn't it always, from someones perspective?)

Well it gives me no pleasure to say this, but...we told you so!!!

Two questions

How long before the asshat 'Al' logs on and repeats wingnut fascist talking points to point out how the commanders and W are all on the same page on the war on terra?

How long before the Pentagon stages a coup d'etat?

I mean how incredibly wonderful would it be to see the Chimperator in and orange jump suit?

Jesus Fucking Christ On a Cracker that would be AWESOME!!!

What are they going to do? Will they be rested, trained and supplied to do anything worth doing?

Real Clear Politics explains how the Surge can easily defeat the terrorists.

Link

"The solution is to work with tribal sheikhs who oppose al Qaida and their militias, Capt. Patriquin said. Sheikhs have been authority figures in Anbar for 14,000 years, and they and their militias know who's who."
"Give the sheikhs respect and government contracts, and recruit their militias into the local police, Capt. Patriquin said."
"Gen. Keane and Prof. Kagan want to surge U.S. troop levels by seven brigades (about 30,000 troops) to secure critical neighborhoods in Baghdad and Ramadi. "

maccabee - apparently about thirty seconds.

Blame the Democrats for not helping him force it down the Joint Chiefs' throats?

Bush, as he has his entire life, is failing. It doesn't really matter now what he says or who else he blames for his failure. His credibility is gone and so is his political power. He has the tail end of his power as C-in-C, meaning he can try pushing armed forces around, but he won't get a force authorization for anything new, and congress can refuse to fund his pet wars.

The wingnut right will go with a "stab in the back" narrative, their last hope for avoiding blaming themselves, but most people aren't going to buy it. (Al and his ilk will, of course, but there aren't enough Al's to keep the GOP in power.)

So stop worrying, Dems, and just do the right thing. Just say no to the surge. There'll be no price to pay for doing it (the right is too weak), and a big price to pay for kowtowing to the chimp, now in the twilight of the extremist right.

I look forward to one or two "early retirements" and a vigorous disavowal of any such sentiment by the rest of the Chiefs in the coming weeks. Hey, it worked with Shinseki...

Someone sent an e-mail with Al's real name and arrest record

Al is a convict and has served a term in prison

am I the only one who received this info?

Al,

Capt. Patriquin was killed recently by a roadside bomb. Guess the local sheik didn't warn him about it in time.

The bizarre part of Capt. Patriquin's famous stick-figure presentation is it never mentions any of the sectarian factions, and instead imagines there are "good" and "bad" iraqis. Yet the sectarian aspect is the overarching set of facts that drives the whole war. Fail to deal with that, and you aren't engaging the reality of it in any serious way.

Sorry Al baby, and with all respects to the now starched Capt. Patriquin, but those tribal sheikhs notoriously bend with the wind and they are as busy as a one armed paper hanger developing their own militias.

The captain's ideas may have had traction 2 yrs ago, but they they no longer reflect the real world.

The whole "surge" concept is so patently absurd that I cannot help feeling it is cover for a more serious objective.

Suppose, for a second, that the original PNAC priorities are still in effect -- invade the ME and take out the regional powers unfriendly to the USA, especially Iran. The priority over even Iraq is taking out Iran as a regional power.

That can only be done with an air campaign, including nukes as needed.

The first logical thought following that breakthrough in strategic planning is that -- hey, fellas -- we'd better beef up our Baghdad forces so the Emerald City survives the Iran air campaign. A lot of Shiites will be really upset with us over this one.

Hence, the patently silly cover story of a "surge" in forces for the impossible goal of disarming Sadr's militias.

The "surge" plan is just cover for attacking Iran while holding on to our 14 bases, and our Embassy by the Tigris.

The "surge" plan is preparation for the Iranian campaign.

...the Surge can easily defeat the terrorists...

OMG! Finally! An easy solution to the Iraq situation! I've been waiting for this for a long time. We havn't had an easy Iraq solution since the days of "greeted as liberators" and "Iraqi oil revenue will pay for this little 2 billion dollar war". Whew! I feel better now. I was starting to feel a little traitor-y with doubts about the "mess" over there, but I'm OK now!

You know, a sustained increased troop presence, up to say 300-400K for several years, might do the trick. I doubt it, but I suppose a dramatic increase in boots on the ground might do it.

As it is, this isn't rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - it's adding 10-20% more deck chairs (and not even the floaty kind.)

Bout time for that TerraLert warning level to be headed upscale I suspect. Might even see it turn as red as a beet.

Trapped animals are always dangerous...

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." - Niccoló Machiavell

If I weren't just sick to death of the faces of nineteen year olds that are shown every night at the end of the news hour, I would say, "Fine, you bastard, surge away!"

We all know it's not going to work. What it will do is create a final surge in America's dislike of the loser, Bush. The lame duck will become a cooked goose.

The Surge, sounds like a great new wave band name from the early 80s

Speaking of paperhangers, this whole endgame is starting to look less like Hitler in the bunker and more like the wind-down of a lesser play by Pirandello.

If someone really wants to salvage Iraq they will call for a 50% tax increase to pay for more soldiers and equipment in Iraq, more construction and bribes and a draft so we can get 400K boots on the ground.
Absent of these two actions, a surge is just pissing into the wind.

On today's Slate Podcast I heard, for the first time, a reasonable explanation for this (unreasonable) policy: The reason why the president is set on sending more troops is that making one grand last-ditch effort will make it easier to accept defeat and pull out when it fails. In other words, it is about saving face and positioning ourselves to better blame the failure on the Iraqis.

Those of us who predicted this were dismissed and called cowards.

Still are, GC (check out the make up of the Iraq Study Group, which contained no one who opposed -- i.e. was right about -- invading Iraq before the war. Not to mention the punditocracy, where the prowar side is overrepresented with nary a glance at their long history of error and intellectual dishonesty.

And will be in the future, as well. After all, the Bush Cultists need someone to blame besides themselves.

The reason there's no basic military strategy behind the surge idea is that, as Kerim says, it's about domestic politics and Bush's place in history.

The Chiefs should stand up to Bush. The military should be running the war, not Bush's political advisers.

I suppose Bush could try and sneak in a few more troops without anyone looking in an operation called "The Sidle."

...what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction?

he could announce that we are pulling the troops out and they will all be home in one standard friedman unit. I think most people would recognize that as a serious change, and it would line up with the majority position in America.

The Joint Chiefs probably know the real death toll in Iraq, which is vastly higher than the 2,900 or so that are reported by the mainstream media. The Generals also know that morale is lower than a snake’s belly and many soldiers are on the verge of mutiny. Bush – the unPresident.

Let’s impeach this scumbag and end the national nightmare!

Saying that surging 20,000 additional troops into Iraq now will change the outcome there is equivalent to saying that surging 100 more troopers into Custer's command on July 27th, 1876, would have changed the outcome of the Little Big Horn.

what you have failed to notice is that Powell came out on Sunday on Face the Nation and said the same thing the Joint Chiefs are reportedly saying - did they go to him and ask him to say in public what they couldn't? And if so what does that say about where things are heading?

There are no solutions to Iraq problem but there are some different choices to be made: the fact that Bush et al have come out and rejected soundly ISG suggestion of engaging Syria and Iran seems to suggest Bush has made his decision and it seems likely to put him at odds with not only majority of american public but more significantly with the military tasked with the burden of the decision.

Never had a coup in this country. Where's our Cromwell?

Someone sent an e-mail with Al's real name and arrest record

Al is a convict and has served a term in prison

Once again liberals resort to false ad hominem attacks rather than engaging in substative discussion.

On the other hand, if a liberal calls you a convict, that's probably a compliment.

More troops = more targets.
I think Bush is leaning toward the surge option because it sounds so, well, virile.

Well you know Bush?

still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military.

That's little Bushie in a nutshell.

Bushie wakes, and sez..."Hey, I know, let's send in more troops?"

I guess little Bushie heard that whining in his ears the SAME way he “swatted flies” prior to 9/11, those SAME darn flies that kept telling little Bushie to take terrorism seriously. Those little Clinton flies.

Little Bushie never listened to the many warnings so it was a “failure of imagination” rather the obvious criminal neglect.

--what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction?

Hey how about impeachment, that works for me.

Al,

The article you posted essentially recommends handing over large bags of cash and effective local control to tribal leaders. OK, fair enough - using local tribal proxies to help you is Colonialism 101, really.

But any article that says

'"Going big" may be our best hope for success in Iraq. But there is a critical precondition. We must have an Iraqi government willing to crack down on Shia death squads as well as Sunni insurgents.'

without suggesting where this government may come from, who it may be composed of, or what incentives there are for it to double their number of enemies by cracking down on the Shia cannot be fairly described as one that describes how one "can easily defeat the terrorists".

In fact, if you find that potential Iraqi government, can I please have it and a pony.

Ian Whitchurch

Let's not forget,folks, who is out front pushing for more troops. Of course, there is Keane and Kagan. And there's Cheney and Rice. But getting the press on the matter is John McCain. This indeed is Bush's War; but it also is fast becoming McCain's War as well.

Oh yeah, and I'd like to repear the phrase " critical precondition". That means it needs to be in place *before* the surge - it's a *precondition*. If you dont have it in place, the new strategy of handing Iraq over to the tribal leadership doesnt work.

How this new government then manages to control all these new tribal militias whose funds and arms come from the American government is left as an excersise for the reader.

Ian Whitchurch

Fuck those generals and admirals. What do they know about war?

> On today's Slate Podcast I heard, for the
> first time, a reasonable explanation for this
> (unreasonable) policy: The reason why the
> president is set on sending more troops is that
> making one grand last-ditch effort will make it
> easier to accept defeat and pull out when it
> fails. In other words, it is about saving face and
> positioning ourselves to better blame the failure
> on the Iraqis.

Except as Duncan Black has pointed out repeatedly and correctly, that is not how W Bush thinks. He really does believe the "Axis of Evil" and "fight them over there" rhetoric. In fact he believes more of the PNAC Creed than the PNACers themselves. He is going to keep the fight going until he is dragged out of the White House by his fingernails.

Given that the Joint Chiefs only seem to have the "spine" to "stand up to" liberal Presidents, I wouldn't look for much salvation from that direction either. Admittedly quite a few on the right are at this point fantasizing about a military coup in _their_ favor, but I don't think that will happen.

Cranky

Al,
Why do you hate the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

You guys just have to read this:

Victory, or Bushmills in the bunker

A play for the holidays, in which President Bushmills, President of Vice Chainsaw, and Secretary of Hate Rice-Cakes take cover from their trademarked war on terror.

By Gary Kamiya
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2006/12/19/bushmills/

[snip]

Rice-Cakes (chirpily from floor): Well, everyone, it's 8 a.m., time for our morning meeting! Let's start with the situation in Iraq. General Agreement, your sycophantic assessment.

General Agreement: Victory is at hand. The commander in chief knows best. The enemy is on the run. American troops have never been defeated in battle. As they stand up, we will stand down.

Chainsaw: What about the Violence Committed by Al-Qaida Evildoers™? Is that getting better?

General Agreement: Well, sir, there are unquestionably some challenging trends there. At this stage, our intelligence indicates that with the exception of five blind paraplegic pacifist Bahais in an abandoned sanitarium outside of Mosul, every single Iraqi in the country is fighting every other Iraqi. Casualties are estimated at 5,000 an hour.

Bushmills: That's great news, General Agreement. If all those freedom-hating ragheads kill each other off, there won't be any terrorists left there! And we can bring our brave American troops home with honor!

General Agreement: Absolutely correct, sir.

Rice-Cakes: But General Agreement, isn't it also the case that all of the Iraqis are also all fighting us?

General Agreement (mumbling): Well, that is technically true. (louder) But as they stand up, we lie down. Then we shoot them and they fall down. Or they shoot us and we fall down. Or something.

[snip]

A surge is not a strategy but an attempt to change tactics.

It would take about 500,000 troops to secure Iraq, Gen. Odom pointing out yesterday that Baghdad alone would need about 120,000. Thus 20 or even 40 thousand more boots gets us nowhere. That big number is needed --- of trained men, (and how long would that take?), to curtail first and then control all movement, almost block by block. That is how colonial invasions control the resisting conquered.

The big big question is how long would we leave them there? Edgar and the Dummy are not answering that one.

I did not think my suggestion was so Off-the-Wall that it would engender no discussion. We need to have some end in view, which our Administration would seem not to have communicated either to the previous or the new Secretary of Defense. So how about our end being the setting up of TE Lawrence's logical and sensible plan ---- Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan? Personally, I think it best for them to be in confederation with Turkey to counter-balance the equal land masses, Sa'udi Arabia and Iran. The Turkish mighty and more secular society could ameliorate the more extreme behaviors of the Shia. Turkey would also come to see the value of an included Kurdistan rather than an opposing one.

Whatever it is that we end with, there has to be some sort of at least wished-for end beyond Cheney's idiotic attempt to steal oil for short money.

Who was it who said "Look what a fine mess you've got us into?"

If Iraq is so Goddammed important, then draft 500 thousand more troops and send them in. If not then get fuck out!

Once a consensus is reached this war is lost pinning it on the Democrats will be priority #1 for the Right. Any refused request by Bush for anything Iraq war related becomes ammunition for that smear. Money, troops, intelligence appropriations, limitations or rollbacks of the Patriot Act, legal rights for detainees, anything remotely related will be presented to the public as tying Bush's hands, meddling with decisions that are the prerogative of the commander in chief and ultimately the probable cause for losing the war. The public will eat it up, just as they did Lewinsky, Whitewater and the Swiftboating of Kerry. It's a Hobson's choice Senate leader Harry Reid is presented with. Advocate getting soldiers out of harm's way now, get blamed for losing Iraq and watch (insert Republican here) win in '08 and send more kids to their deaths in Iran and Syria. Or stand aside and give Bush whatever he wants and witness more kids fed to the meat grinder now. Bush has set it up for Americans to die in great numbers in pointless wars regardless of anyone's choices or policies. In some parallel universe he'd hang. In this one he'll retire rich, safe and insulated from all the death and pain he's wrought.

All the administration wants to do now is save face. Things are so far gone that there is probably nothing we can do to actually resolve the huge mistake that was the Iraq invasion. The actions of the Bush administration have all but guaranteed that radical Islamic fundamentalism and the accompanying terrorism will grow.

Honestly, I think we should forget about saving face and actually figure out a way to resolve things. It won't happen, because that would need to involve, at the barest minimum, an acknowledgement of what a disaster our Iraq policy was.

> All the administration wants to do now is
> save face.

Disagree. I see no sign that Cheney thinks he has made a mistake or that any change of plan and goal is needed, and plenty of signs that W is going to follow Cheney's lead and "stay the course".

Cranky

Steve Duncan is right on target, saying "pinning it on the Democrats will be priority #1 for the Right." President Bush and his minions are practicing a deadly form of realpolitik with Iraq; morals and ethics are not part of this calculation.

The Democrats had best be up for the fight. My approach would be to say "this is what Commander in Chief Bush wants. We will not tie President Bush's hands nor oppose him in this, even though we do not believe it will work."

Pity the troops, pawns in homegrown power games. But hey, they volunteered for war so what else can they expect? We sure don't hear many redstaters speaking to the fate of the Army!

Make no mistake, President Bush believes in the Iraq war. He is a zealot and he will not admit to mistakes. He believes that he will be vindicated and he is not interested in saving face. That's why he dismissed the Iraq Study Group findings out of hand. In fact, he's chosen the opposite direction.

Ooops! Dropped a line in this paragraph: "Pity the troops, pawns in homegrown power games. But hey, they volunteered for war so what else can they expect? We sure don't hear many redstaters speaking to the fate of the Army!"

Meant to say "Pity the troops, pawns in homegrown power games. But hey, the right has been saying the troops volunteered for war so what else can they expect? We sure don't hear many redstaters speaking to the fate of the Army!

Unless the increased troops are going to be used to support a complete withdrawal, their mission will be a failure. When I first heard of this proposal, supporting withdrawal was the only logical reason for increasing troops I could come up with. I was almost hopeful. Too bad for the soldiers, they will not be coming home in an orderly, safe withdrawal.

The great thing about my president is that he doesn't give one tiny little damn about what his legions of critics think, he is going to continue to try and manage the chaos that a war on terror would inevitably entail.

We don't know what the world would look like today if Iraq had not been invaded. A lot of Democrats signed off on the intervention.

My guess is that Bush doesn't even care about impeachment at this point. He is convinced that cutting and running at this point would be a bad idea and, once again, even some Democrats seem to understand that much.

So, where does that leave us? Trying to negotiate with Syria and Iran from a position of weakness is futile. In fact, such negotiations would be a despicable exercise in double speak, as the negotiators would mainly be posturing to the folks back home, trying to inflate the perception that they were serving some useful purpose. Now if we started bombing Syrian and Iran, then those nations would have a real motivation to negotiate and compromise.

Yeah mike cook, sucker punching that guy down in the shipping department will make him realize taking your spot in the parking lot was a real big mistake. I'm sure he'll just concede defeat, slink off and not give a thought as to how he's gonna get back at your ass but good sometime when you're not looking. Works every time, yessiree-bob.

The real question in all of this debacle concerns when bush will be impeached for his actions - lies, deceptions and misconstructions that have created this situation. The problem is that he would be replaced by cheney who also needs to be impeached.

Why would Kevin think that it would be hard for Bush to buck the JCoS? Hasn't Bush made it clear that he is "the decider"? Nothing will stop Bush from getting his war on. Sheesh.

We don't know what the world would look like today if Iraq had not been invaded.

We know that Iraq wasn't much of a threat to the US.

We know that 140,000 US troops wouldn't be bogged down in a nation building excercise in Iraq.

We know that it isn't a "cakewalk"

We know that we weren't welcomed with flowers.

zak822: Make no mistake, President Bush believes in the Iraq war. He is a zealot and he will not admit to mistakes. He believes that he will be vindicated and he is not interested in saving face. That's why he dismissed the Iraq Study Group findings out of hand. In fact, he's chosen the opposite direction.

This paragraph is evidently meant as a criticism, yet I see it as a compliment. Yes, Bush believes that having a successful democratic government in Iraq will be very good for the region, for the US, while a defeat there will encourage more terrrorism in other countries. I agree on this point. Bush is dealing with the root causes of terrorism. Rather than try to save face and make himself look good, Bush is trying to do what is best for the world.

Back to the topic. I am dubious that a brief "surge" will turn the tide. I expect Bush to withdraw American troops within the next couple of years. Or, President Obama will withdraw troops in 2009.

Nevertheless, I think the Iraqi government still can prevail. The current Newsweek has an article about the booming economy. Despite the carnage, the economy is growing. The bulk of the Iraqi public prefers the government to any of the insurgent groups. I still have hope that the democratic government will succeed, even though it will take many years to put down the insurgency.

"The real question in all of this debacle concerns when bush will be impeached for his actions - lies, deceptions and misconstructions that have created this situation."
____________________

When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses? To one extent or another, every government lies and deceives, especially in wartime. Expecting or advocating impeachment is simply wishful thinking with no basis in reality.

"When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses?"
Posted by: Trashhauler on December 19, 2006 at 11:13 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless of course you're a Democrat and your name is Bill Clinton, right?

Kevin: "... what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction?"

Withdraw all US troops beginning immediately, and as quickly as possible.

Bush will never "offer" this alternative, so Congress must exercise its Constitutional authority to cut off funds for the Iraq war and demand that Bush use the funding that's already in the pipeline from the last SEVENTY BILLION dollar appropriation to pay for bringing the troops home.

Senators and Members of Congress who vote to continue giving Bush money for the war are just as culpable as Bush, Cheney et al for the ongoing slaughter and destruction in Iraq.

"At least the Decider is consistent. From the start his administration's approach to this botched war has been to sort through all the tactical alternatives and pick the most counterproductive -- send too few troops, disband the Iraqi army, stand by while looters destroy critical infrastructure and the social order, allow sectarian militias to fill the power vacuum, make reconstruction an afterthought, and put know-nothings in charge of it." - Eugene Robinson - A 'Surge' in Wasted Sacrifice

"ex-liberal", who comically pretends to be a former "liberal" while specializing in slavishly regurgitating the most inane Bush-bootlicking talking points, wrote: "Bush believes that having a successful democratic government in Iraq will be very good for the region"

Bullshit. Bush has no interest in a "democratic government in Iraq." Bush wants nothing but a US -backed, subservient puppet government that will give his cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies complete control of Iraq's oil industry. This is the core recommendation of the ISG report and it is the core of the Bush administration's "plan" for Iraq.

Every poll ever conducted on the question shows that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe that the US occupation is causing the violence and chaos in their country, that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the US to withdraw immediately, and that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis approve of attacks on the US forces.

Any remotely "democratic" Iraqi government would demand the immediate, complete withdrawal of US forces.

I wish people would stop quoting this idiotic Newsweek article about Iraq's suppposedly, er, "booming" economy. If you actually read the piece, it's based mostly on the robust growth in the cell phone business, which was largely non-existent until the invasion, and is now essential because people are desperate to keep in touch with loved ones whom they may never see again if they so much as go out shopping or to work. Real estate is doing well too, mostly to keep up with demand from people who have been ethnically cleansed from their old neighborhoods. It's basically trying to take Iraq's booming black market and war economy, fueled by billions in expropriated reconstruction funds, and pass that off as some kind of progress. the figure to keep an eye on is the refugees: people are voting on Iraq's prospects with their feet by the 10's of thousands each week. The article doesn't mention that figure.

"Bush is dealing with the root causes of terrorism"

And what would those be? US troops in the middle east? Support of corrupt governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt? Supporting Isreal at the expense of the Palastinians? Not stopping Britney Spears and Paris Hilton videos and gangsta rap into the area? Not solving the dispute between Jen and Angelina?

Democracy was not even on Shrub's agenda until WMDs were not found.

Define "victory" and "win" - When all violence stops? When a "democratic, viable" country is established? Ain't goin to happen, bub. As Friedman recently said, the Iraqis do not want democracy as much as they want justice, group against group, sect against sect.

Who will be the last American soldier killed because we send more troops into a lost cause? If we stay while the Iraqi's seek justice and revenge, we will have to pick a side and fight with them in the bloodbath.

Operation Forward was a disaster - It is time to continue Operations Backward and Get The F--- Out.

Hey, Cook - Get thee down to McChord - Spotters and forward observors needed in Syria and Iran.

For military men, the chiefs have been incredibly brutal in their criticism of the president's apparent plan for a surge. I think they fear it will destroy their volunteer force.

Trashhauler: "When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses?"

That's ignorant bullshit. Perpetrating a fraud against the United States of America is a crime.

Ex lib,
Hey, even I believe that a democratic and free Iraq would benefit the ME, the United States and the world. So what?

I on the other hand am intelligent enough and observant to realize that W has truly screwed the pooch by, in the past, ignoring any intel that cast doubt on the reasons for or likely results of an Iraqi invasion because he wanted to be a war president. I can clearly see that Iraq is lost, and has been lost since before the troops rolled because guess what, when you kill hundreds of thousands based on lies and hubris, you have lost before you start.

So take your sanctimonious posing spomeplace else. They like and admire your ilk over at Little Green Footballs.

"Democracy was not even on Shrub's agenda until WMDs were not found."

That's when we got velcroed to the place. We had to turn down an unknown and unexpected path and we're in deep Mirkwood now.

Here's when the current members of the Joint Chiefs started their military careers—

Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman: 1967
Adm. Edmund P. Giambiastiani, Jr., USN, Vice Chair: 1970
Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, USA, Army Chief of Staff: 1969
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, USN, CNO: 1968
Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF, Air Force Chief of Staff: 1972
Gen. James T. Conway, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps: 1970

Anyone think of why they might all have a special aversion to escalating an increasing unpopular counterinsurgency war with no clear strategy for victory?

When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses?

Impeachable offenses are whatever the House of Representatives says are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Certainly, the executive deliberately deceiving the Congress on matters of war and peace where the Congress relies on the honesty of the executive in making decisions (and creating conditional authorizations) is precisely the kind of abuse of office that is toxic to the Constitutional order of government for which the impeachment power is most important.

To one extent or another, every government lies and deceives, especially in wartime.

"Everyone does something that if you zoom out far enough and ignore important details is vaguely similar" is about the lamest defense imaginable.

Hear, hear!

A back bencher cheers Mr. D.

we can always count on Chris to do the heavy lifting while we wait for our coffee to kick in.

As always Dicely posts an informed and organized comment.

Kevin, I think you hit on it with the phrase "seems like a new direction." This is really the only thing going on here. Bush and others are trying to bamboozle the plebs into thinking a major strategy change is afoot. Meanwhile, it is important that no major strategy change be implemented. Thus, 20,000 troops. Enough to say,"lookee here!" but not enough to matter, conveniently leaving open the possibilty that there will be a sequel to all this BS, i.e. 20,000 more in 2009.

"Perpetrating a fraud against the United States of America is a crime."
_______________

And it is not necessarily a given that lying or deception, even if committed, amount to fraud. Making that case is very tough, even if any politicians were really inclined to make it. Which they aren't.

When ze Chats (Rumdumb) is away, the meece will play.

Hail to the Chiefs - No, not the ones who wear Red and White - With Rummy gone, they have suddenly found some spine.

"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption," Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni

"It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously flawed policies and strategies needlessly cost American lives."
-William A. Whitlow - Retired major general in the Marine Corps

General William Odom on Iraq: "It is the greatest strategic disaster in US history."

And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...

thethirdPaul: "Bush is dealing with the root causes of terrorism"

And what would those be?

The root cause is a culture that foments hatred, that preaches contempt for other cultures, that rules through the most brutal use of force. Similar root causes led fascists in Japan and Germany and the Communists in the USSR to seek worldwide domination using the most horrific means.

The US and its allies defeated Japan and Germany militarily, then ended the root causes by implementing liberal democratic governments. We defeated the USSR without an all-out war and helped institute democracy in many of the old USSR countries. I hope the US and its allies can repeat these successes with the Islamic world. The alternatives to implementation of democracy are apt to be much worse than the present war in Iraq.

To the fellow named Trashauler,

Rep. James Brooks and Alexander Stephens would be sooooo proud of you.

As we open another door on the Advent Calendar, wonder how many of our dying and maimed troops are we going to find behind it today?

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

The Joint Chiefs are making the obvious point here:

What if they threw a surge and no one came?

Surging may work when you're fighting a uniformed force and attempting to wrest territory away from them.

Here the "enemy" already holds the territory and they're essentially invisible. It's their home, they're not going anywhere, they speak the language, and they have the support of large segments of the populace. We can surge all we want, they can simply choose to lay back, enjoy some sweet tea and kleicha, and wait us out.

Maybe I am missing something. I can see the generals don't like to see the military demolished, it took a long time to repair the damage after Vietnam. The goal in Iraq seems to be the privatization of the oil recources, after that the troops would have to stay in the bases Haliburton is building right now. The Baker/Hamilton report said as much. If the generals believe it can be done they will do as told, maybe they know it can't be done at a reasonable price.

"Certainly, the executive deliberately deceiving the Congress on matters of war and peace where the Congress relies on the honesty of the executive in making decisions....."
__________________

Emphasis on the modifier, "deliberately." Proving that will take more than wishful thinking or partisan interpretation. Regardless of the extent that high crimes and misdemeanors are anything that the House decides they are, they still need to use standard rules of evidence.

And it's not even solely dependent on if the alleged deceptions were deliberate. (FDR heroically and deliberately deceived Congress about his plans for entering WWII.) What it comes down to is that calls for impeachment from the more impassioned part of the Democratic base will not alone translate into any real action.

Thanks FAUXLib, for your insightful study of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

How does one ask soldiers to die for Exxon Mobile?

Stock options?

This liberal for one supports the surge for the Grand Move Forward. All those who do not see the great value in this enterprise should be sent to re-education camps.

Al

Imagining that giving money and arms top the sheikhs will bring "victory" in Iraq shows just the level of pig ignorance that has got us into this slough. It is true that the Sheikhs have been traditional leaders of the tribes in rural Iraq for centuries (but not 14000 years. Mesopotamia's written history goes back at the most to 3000BC) But there has been a massive migration of Iraqis to the cities over the past half century. Tribal loyalties in the urban population are weak or non-existent. Sheikhs have little influence in placesd like Baghdad, Mosul, Basra etc. The young mostly unemployed follow the likes of Moqtada al Sadr if they are Shia, Al-Qaeda or Baathist figures if they are Sunni.

ex-lib says:

"I am dubious that a brief "surge" will turn the tide. I expect Bush to withdraw American troops within the next couple of years. Or, President Obama will withdraw troops in 2009.

Nevertheless, I think the Iraqi government still can prevail."

Wonderful! I happen to think the Iraqis can sort out their own problems, too. So how about we let them start, and get our kids out of there now, rather than later?

Al

Imagining that giving money and arms top the sheikhs will bring "victory" in Iraq shows just the level of pig ignorance that has got us into this slough. It is true that the Sheikhs have been traditional leaders of the tribes in rural Iraq for centuries (but not 14000 years. Mesopotamia's written history goes back at the most to 3000BC) But there has been a massive migration of Iraqis to the cities over the past half century. Tribal loyalties in the urban population are weak or non-existent. Sheikhs have little influence in placesd like Baghdad, Mosul, Basra etc. The young mostly unemployed follow the likes of Moqtada al Sadr if they are Shia, Al-Qaeda or Baathist figures if they are Sunni.

ex-lib says:

"I am dubious that a brief "surge" will turn the tide. I expect Bush to withdraw American troops within the next couple of years. Or, President Obama will withdraw troops in 2009.

Nevertheless, I think the Iraqi government still can prevail."

Wonderful! I happen to think the Iraqis can sort out their own problems, too. So how about we let them start, and get our kids out of there now, rather than later?

Are we supposed to believe this?

1. After missing the needed occupation numbers in 2003 by a factor of 4, a 25% increase now is going to bring Iraq under control.

2. That in December 2006, these geniuses have finally realized they need to control Baghdad. Of course they aren't that stupid, but they are stupid enough to retry the exact same last ditch campaign that failed to save their bacon N times before, and the media's stupid enough not to notice, even though the previous last shot was just a couple of months ago.

I think we should let them have their "surge".

It will fail. And there will be more deaths.

But it's the ONLY thing that's going to finally prove to them that it would have failed. And it will make it more difficult for them to make the "stabbed in the back" argument.

Hopefully, it will dissuade the next generation of asshole Young Republicans from making this mistake next war.

I can't for the life of me understand how you folks can say the Republicans have failed in Iraq.

Point One, the Republican secretary of defense was able to boost defense spending to more than half a trillion dollars a year, which pleases the military brass and the defense contractors who constitute a vital Republican constituency. And he did it without having to deflect money from shady confines of R&D to purchase such things as body armor for the troops, etc.

Point Two, the Republican vice president and his Texas oil buddies garnered control of Iraq oil, a bonanza for their futures of unparalleled magnitude. And this is not to mention the tens of billions of dollars in contracts ladeled out to their firms, many on a no-bid basis, pocket change for them but nevertheless which paid in its entirety, among other things, for the move by Halliburton from Dallas to Houston. Republicans all and you better believe that no one does business in the Oil Patch without significant contributions to the Republican Party and only the Republican Party, no one, or else. (Read the disappearance of Ross Perot from the political scene, by way of example. For him, it was either vanish or lose big time on family business interests in Fort Worth, just as starters.)

Point Three, the Republicans achieved their dreamed of little five-year war which neatly permitted them to deflect attention from their handover of significant portions of the American economy to business people who most profit from it at the expense of the general public and who obligingly fill the Party coffers on demand.

pdq wrote: I happen to think the Iraqis can sort out their own problems, too. So how about we let them start, and get our kids out of there now, rather than later?

As an aside, the Iraqis could not have sorted out their own problems while Saddam was in power. Even though we haven't achieved all our goals in Iraq, and even though the occupation was mismanaged, we still should take pride in freeing the country from that evil ruler.

Ex Lib

Germany and Japan did not have various sects or factions fighting to gain control of the country or fighting the occupation. There is no similarity between them and Iraq.

Here's the thing you and others who still believe in "victory" won't admit. Since Bush and Rumsfeld's undermaned occupation and corrupt reconstruction allowed the insurgency to grow into a powerful force, the only military way to beat the insurgency now will involve killing tens of thousands of insurgents and any "collateral damage" who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not the kind of mission we've trained our troops for. That's not the kind of mission the American people will support.

Bush has already lost the war. The best way out is to pull our troops out and fix our broken Army. A new C-in-C would be preferable, but won't happen until Jan 2009.

"thethirdPaul: "Bush is dealing with the root causes of terrorism"

And what would those be?

The root cause is a culture that foments hatred, that preaches contempt for other cultures, that rules through the most brutal use of force..."

That's a good description of today's american right.

jefff wrote:

"That's a good description of today's american right."

My thoughts exactly.

Trashhauler,

You really don't understand what CMD wrote, do you? Read it again:

Impeachable offenses are whatever the House of Representatives says are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Furthermore, the House doesn't need to adhere to any rules of evidence. The trial takes place in the Senate, where the rule of evidence are, to paraphrase, whatever the Chief Justice says they are.

Trashhauler: "When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses?"

WTF? Didn't Clinton just get impeached for lying?

I don't care who is sucking the President's cock. I care where he's spending a TRILLION of my tax dollars.

I've heard the argument that lying was necessary in order to keep up morale, or in order to do "what needed to be done" -

Fuck. That. Shit.

I'm an American, and I'm an adult, and I vote. The President works for ME. Don't blow sunshine up my ass.

Emphasis on the modifier, "deliberately." Proving that will take more than wishful thinking or partisan interpretation.

You seem to mistake impeachment for a legal process; it is not, it is a political one.

Regardless of the extent that high crimes and misdemeanors are anything that the House decides they are, they still need to use standard rules of evidence.

False, again. "Standard rules of evidence" do not apply in impeachment proceedings. What is admissible in evidence is whatever the Senate chooses to admit; the standard of proof is whatever convinces members of the Senate to vote for conviction. You really don't have any clue what you are talking about, do you?

The President works for ME.

OBF, you should have fired his ass a looong time ago.

Neocon "ex-liberal" wrote: As an aside, the Iraqis could not have sorted out their own problems while Saddam was in power.

Yeah -- the Iraqis would never have solved the problems of sectarian violence, rampant crime, and bloody ethnic cleansing under Saddam. Oh, wait...

Even though we haven't achieved all our goals in Iraq, and even though the occupation was mismanaged, we still should take pride in freeing the country from that evil ruler.

Now, now, "ex-liberal," it's flagrant bullshit like this that leads one to suspect you don't really believe the tripe you post. No, there's no pride in delivering Iraq from an evil ruler into the hands of anarchy and civil war -- and who knows, perhaps another evil ruler or rulers to boot. No, no, Iraq's a total clusterfuck, and it's the proclivity of Bush to refuse data he doesn't like that you find so admirable that got us here.

Unfortunately for you and your neocon agenda, the total incompetence of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole rotten crew has ruined the GOP's decades-long branding effort as "strong on defense" for a generation or more. As for freedom, well, your bullshit could only be posted by someone completely dishoenst or totally clueless.

Although in your case I'll admit they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

tomeck: Since Bush and Rumsfeld's undermaned occupation and corrupt reconstruction allowed the insurgency to grow into a powerful force, the only military way to beat the insurgency now will involve killing tens of thousands of insurgents and any "collateral damage" who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not the kind of mission we've trained our troops for. That's not the kind of mission the American people will support.

I agree with this. What we faced in Vietnam and again in Iraq is a guerilla war against an enemy who was more ruthless than we were. We don't want to reduce our civilized standards of warfare, but it can't be good for the most barbaric side to win these wars.

We urgently need a better paradigm for fighting guerilla wars.

Gregory: there's no pride in delivering Iraq from an evil ruler into the hands of anarchy and civil war -- and who knows, perhaps another evil ruler or rulers to boot.

Abraham Lincoln delivered the United States from peace to a bloody civil war in which 620,000 Americans died. If Iraq is eventually ruled by a dictator just as evil as Saddam, then I will agree with Gregory. However, if Iraq muddles through into a better government, then Bush and all Americans will deserve some credit.

Yes, FAUXLib, we have brought freedom to Iraq - Freedom has become "just another word for nothing else to lose" - Freedom to squeeze off a few rounds of an AK-47 into your neighbor's head.

And we are supposed to place our fine young men and women between those factions?

And one does not even have to be in a combat mode - I refer to the highest ranking woman in the military to be killed - The Marine Major who was escorting Oliver North and a news team was on a PR assignment when an IED took her life two weeks ago.

Heh, so as long as someday however far in the future Iraq becomes a reasonably good place to live we win?

Hey! By that standard if we just wait another ten years we might win the vietnam war.

So are you digging holes in an effort to get those goalposts lower yet?

ex-lib writes:

We urgently need a better paradigm for fighting guerilla wars.

There is - wasn't there just a post about how 80% of the cost of fighting a guerilla war should be spent on hearts and minds? It seems to me Bush has never opened a history book in his life. But alas, some wars are not worth fighting - what has really failed here is the basis of the neo-con ideology.

Also, as noted on Scarborough, who is increasingly lucid these days, we have already increased our troop strength in Iraq by about 20,000 troops since August, and since then, violence has increased. What makes Bush think 20k more will make any difference? Also, as noted on the show, only 12% of the American people support adding more troops. This is significant not that the President should listen to the American people, but can a war be fought and won when the majority of the people have already viewed it as a lost cause?

Trashhauler wrote: "... it is not necessarily a given that lying or deception, even if committed, amount to fraud. Making that case is very tough, even if any politicians were really inclined to make it. Which they aren't."

Retired Federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega makes the case:

... in the following pages I intend to present a hypothetical indictment to a hypothetical grand jury. The defendants are President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The crime is tricking the nation into war-in legal terms, conspiracy to defraud the United States.

[...]

If the indictment and grand jury are hypothetical, the evidence is not. I've prepared for this case, just as I would have done for any other case in my years as a prosecutor, by reviewing all of the available relevant information. In this case, such information consists of witness accounts, the defendants' speeches, public remarks, White House press briefings, interviews, congressional testimony, official documents, all public intelligence reports, and various summaries of intelligence, such as in the reports of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the 9/11 Commission. I've discarded any evidence, however compelling, that is uncorroborated.

[...]

I've organized and analyzed the reliable information chronologically, by topic, and by defendant. I've compared what the President and his advisers have said publicly to what they knew and said behind the scenes. Finally, I've presented the case through testimony that will, I hope, make sense and keep everybody awake.

After analyzing this evidence in light of the applicable law, I've determined that we already have more than enough information to allow a reasonable person to conclude that the President conducted a wide-ranging effort to deceive the American people and Congress into supporting a war against Iraq. In other words, in legal terms, there is probable cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. Probable cause is the standard of proof required for a grand jury to return an indictment. Consequently, we have more than sufficient evidence to warrant indictment of the President and his advisers.

With cmdicely's comments in mind, Ms. de la Vega's case is also probably "more than sufficient evidence" for the House to impeach, and the Senate to try, convict and remove from office, both Bush and Cheney.

The Bush-bootlicker ex-liberal wrote: "We urgently need a better paradigm for fighting guerilla wars."

Why? So we can invade and occupy countries and steal their oil?

"Abraham Lincoln DELIVERED us from peace......"

WTF is Schaife teaching these days in their Tail Start program for mis-guided juvies?

Oh, yeah, I remember when Abe and Stanton slipped down into South Carolina and fired upon Ft Sumter. Boy, did they have to skedaddle back north lickety split.

Ex-liberal. Greetings, I bucked the trend: instead of growing more right wing (very difficult) as I go older I moved leftwards as anyone sane faced by our present regime would. There is simething seriously wrong with you, and you should see a doctor.

Amidst your rantings I have heard no solution proffered, no result, no finality .... no suggestion nabout what will be left in place when we do finally leave, or are you anticipating the Shia will be living back in the marshes and the Sunni in the desert in tents. You see, there has been settlement in that neighborhood whenb your ancestors were in caves, so their descendants do have something over us.

BTW, weren't the Sumerians in or about the euphrayes/tigrias valley, which makes 14000BC the more accurate date.

Huff and Puff says the Pentagon is going to produce a "Show of Force" against Iran, which is a bit odd when they are jibbing at finding 40,000 extra men for Iraq which needs 350,000. Do they know how big Iran is, or is this of the level of Bush saying "I thought the Iraqis were moslems" and they have no idea?

Have the politicians --- I mean in Congress --- rnoticed there was an election in Iran at the weekend and it would seem the softer gang gave the unspellable (by me!) president a bloody nose? This would suggest that the pols might tell the party hacks/corporate thieves in the Administration thay are not getting any money for it while we wait a bit.

When a country has been destroyed, it's usually time for non-military solutions to rebuild a functioning society.

Our initial Shock and Awe continues to echo throughout Iraq to this day.

I have a hunch that we are witnessing a chapter in human history that will reverberate for generations.

Not too long ago, it was considered patriotic to
eat "freedom fries." Sheesh.

You can't wish away our audacious attempt to create an OZ in the heart of the Arab world.

The bathtub is already sloshing over, surging more troops into the fray will only result in more bloodshed and do nothing to calm the waters.

Sad to say, we are occasionally Shocked by FAUXLib, but we are never in Awe of him.

thethirdPaul wrote:

To the fellow named Trashauler,

Rep. James Brooks and Alexander Stephens would be sooooo proud of you.
___________________

Paul, there isn't any sense trying to shame someone who hasn't done anything wrong. Despite all those here who long for, and sometime howl for, impeachment, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how unlikely it is. One doesn't even have to agree with our Iraq strategy to realize that.

Should we also impeach all congressmen who voted to authorize this use of force?

Disputo wrote:

You really don't understand what CMD wrote, do you? Read it again:

Impeachable offenses are whatever the House of Representatives says are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Furthermore, the House doesn't need to adhere to any rules of evidence. The trial takes place in the Senate, where the rule of evidence are, to paraphrase, whatever the Chief Justice says they are.
___________________

Disputo, since I didn't contradict anything CMD wrote, I don't know how you can assume I didn't understand her. Regardless that impeachment trials are held in the Senate, the House would, of necessity, have to make a case based on evidence. Ergo, they would establish some demonstrably fair rule of evidence, even if ad hoc.

this from Bill Roggio might be of interest:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_military_transit.php

H outlines lots of tasks that can be addressed in a surge.

Extradite Rumsfeld wrote:

Trashhauler: "When are folks going to realize that lying and deceiving are not impeachable offenses?"

WTF? Didn't Clinton just get impeached for lying?

I'm an American, and I'm an adult, and I vote. The President works for ME. Don't blow sunshine up my ass.
____________________

ER, lying and deception are not crimes, in and of themselves, except under precise circumstances. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, which is one of those precise situations.

Otherwise, lying and deception can only be elements of a crime, fraud in this case. However, since lying and deception can be done without a crime being committed, it is fair to say that, by themselves, they aren't impeachable expenses.

I'm going to take a chance and assume you haven't taken many law courses. I assure you that I'm not blowing smoke into any of your orifices.

Abraham Lincoln delivered the United States from peace to a bloody civil war in which 620,000 Americans died.

You're not one of those "War of Northern Aggression" guys, are you? Let's see, the South wanted to secede, the South raised an Army, the South fired on a Federal fort... and it's Lincoln's fault?

Abraham Lincoln delivered the United States from peace to a bloody civil war in which 620,000 Americans died.

Ah...I see "ex-liberal" opts for dishonest.

First of all, Abraham Lincoln, by himself, did no such thing. As for the Civil War, it was the traitors in the Confederacy -- the heirs of which, the Republican Party, you adhere to -- who started that fiasco by seceding and then by attac