Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Thursday, May 24, 2007

HaikuReporter.com Spotlight


No troop pullout dates? /
Congressional Dems have earned /
the term "cut and run"

I've decided to post all my Political Entries from HaikuReporter over here as well, because content is content.

After all the cheerleading I've done for the Democratic takeover in congress, it sickens me to see them fold on this just because Georgie threw another temper tantrum. What gets me is the flawed logic in this politically calculated move: if more than half the country wants us out of Iraq, wouldn't taking steps in that direction better qualify as an appeal to the moderate base than the current act of caving to pressure from the right?

I've heard the argument that it wasnt a total loss because of some of the language put in the measure to create 'benchmarks'; my boy David Swanson at afterDowningStreet.org makes it clear that these are benchmarks in name alone.

Then there's the line about how this bill is a victory because they're going to push through a long-overdue minimum wage hike. This is an insulting attempt at placation by introducing legislation that they quite frankly were supposed to introduce anyway. At its best, this is misdirection - smoke and mirrors. At its worst, its a bribe of blood money: "would you feel better about our soldiers dying in a war to line the pockets of big oil and Halliburton if they also helped the working poor make rent?"

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

It'll be better in September, I promise!

With all the GOP talk about giving the troop surge in Iraq until september to produce positive results or else face republicans breaking camp, I realized something:

Isn't there an anniversary or something in September that the administration can wave in the public's face to paint any opposition to the troop surge as a danger to Americans at home?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've seen enough movies to know you don't chase the wounded enemy into an alley or ravine unless you want to fall victim to an ambush.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

All 4 branches of the military in unison: Rumsfeld must go

In a rare joint editorial to appear monday in the Army Times, Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, and Air Force Times, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's Resignation is called for:

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

This is not a bunch of liberals trying to "cut and run" - this is ALL FOUR BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY SAYING THE SAME THING!! How much clearer does it have to get before conservatives join us in demanding his resignation?

Thanks to Bluegrass Report & Daily Kos.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Taking the military back...

I found this extremely interesting: Out of the dozen Iraq War veterans currently running for Congress, a whopping TEN are running as Democrats (that means only two Iraq veterans are running as Republicans, for those of you who are math-impaired). Wow. That means five times as many veteran candidates are aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

But how can this be? The Republicans claim to be the party that represents the military - after all, who coined the phrase "defeatocrat"? Who's been advocating that we should "stay the course" and not "cut and run"? What are these veterans thinking? Here are my three guesses for the Democrat's lead in veteran candidates:
  1. The situation in Iraq is so doomed to failure that out of all the Iraq veterans in a position to run for public office, those who are Democrats feel the need to speak out against the Bush Administrations handling of the war, while most Republican-leaning vets are having a hard time trumpeting the mantra of "stay the course"
  2. Most modern Republicans who'd ever be in a position to run for office would never actually serve in the military to begin with.
Just remember that ratio: 5 to 1. Think about that the next time the Republicans, a party led by:
  • A President who only served 4 years out of 6 in the Texas air national guard
  • A Vice-President who received several draft deferments to avoid Vietnam
  • A speaker of the House, a Senate Majority leader, a House Majority Whip and a Senate Majority Whip who DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY
a party that forced a resolution through the house budget committee to take $844 million out of funding for veterans' medical care, try to wrap themselves in the flag and claim that voting FOR Democrats is voting AGAINST the military.