Three times a charm, George?

From Americablog: Nancy Pelosi asks the question about the surge that we all want to ask:

PELOSI: He's tried this two times — it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?'

BUSH: Because I told them it had to.

PELOSI: Why didn't you tell them that the other two times?

Molly says "Raise hell!": March January 27

It's good to see Texan and syndicated columnist Molly Ivins back on the anti-war path (she's been ill). At alternet.comshe says:

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on January 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

Full text of article

Oops! "Surge" is purged

This article by Adam Green traces the short history of a current military term.

The Administration keeps trying to put one over on the public and test-drives words to see if we bite. Surge sucks, it turns out. So will we now accept Rice's "augmentation?" Probably not, since it will be as effective as some of the other products in that category.

Hear ye, hear ye!

Let word go out far and wide -"surge" has been purged from the lexicon of the Iraq war debate.

A term that once promised to join the ranks of "personal accounts," "clear skies," "healthy forests" and other Bush Propaganda All Starsmet a quick demise Wednesday when the president decided he could not credibly use the term to describe his Iraq escalation policy.

As you may know, "surge" was a recently invented term - leaked by Bush Administration officials to the press after the November elections that existed nowhere in Department of Defense's official Dictionary of Military Terms. By contrast, "escalation" is an official military term and has been used historically to describe troop increases (see Vietnam).

But for months, proponents of escalating the Iraq war have insisted
on using the term "surge" and the media have gone right along. Did you ever wonder why this word was pushed so hard?

A recent CBS poll lends a clue. Only 18% of Americans support putting more troops in Iraq. But when the question is framed as a "short-term" troop increase, support jumped to 45% (still a minority, but more substantial). And as CNN analyst Bill Schneider points out, "surge sounds temporary."

Some excellent research by Nico Pitney at Think Progress bolsters this theory. Between November 19 and November 22, there was a series of leaks by "senior officials" to the press - linking a possible "surge" to the concept of "short-term."

"Short-term surge," reported the New York Times and MSNBC. "Short period," reported the Washington Post. "Temporary surge," reported the Christian Science Monitor. ABC's Jonathan Karl even reported a "temporary surge of no more than 60 days."

We could win Iraq in 60 days, wow! The media was primed. The public was primed. There was just one small thing standing in the way - the truth.

That truth started coming out a month later - on December 27.

Rest of article from Huffington Post

Byrd says it again

In a post here on February 13, 2003, Senator Robert Byrd eloquently articulated his objection to our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said back then:

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

He continues the eloquence today. Will someone listen to him this time? We know it won't be the President or his handlers. But will members of the Congress of both parties listen and take ACTION to stop this no longer subtle commandeering of US democracy by a bunch of tyrannical madmen?

Here's the speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate Thursday afternoon, January 11, 2007

Via commondreams.org

A checklist of Bush blunders and lies - thanks Keith!

Crooks and Liars » Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.
So, let's look at the record:

• Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America. Now, he says it is vital for America.
  
  
• He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
  
  
• He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.
  
  
• He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
  
  
• In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.
  
  
• He sent in fewer troops than recommended.
  
  
• He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government.
  
  
• He short-changed Iraqi training.
  
  
• He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.
  
  
• He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.
  
  
• Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.
  
  
• Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
  
  
• We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
  
  
• He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
  
  
• He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.
  
  
• We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.
  
  
• As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',
  
  
• The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.
  
  
• The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
  
  
• And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

It's the oil, stupid

**Interesting thread on HuffingtonPost.com immediately after Bush's "surge" speech last night. In it is an intriguing, though convoluted argument that I feel needs to be set apart for scrutiny later if the events and logic cited actually come to pass.

It is McCain/Lieberman on a ticket for2008! McCain has already filed as a candidate for the Presidency in 2008 (Federal Election Commission). Bush has announced Lieberman to "head" the meetings on the progress with him in the White House on Iraq. McCain made the deal with the bankers of the U.S. several months ago in Europe when he accompanied Rumsfeld on a "briefing meeting on Iraq'". Eversince then, he has been in the loop with the White House (getting groomed).There are two outcomes for when withdrawal from Iraq occurs. Immediate withdrawal means that World Oil and Gas prices tumble and the Middle-East region National Leaders who have production commitments risk their overthrow from their partners within, and then the Bankers will renegotiate their "payoffs" with new oil price models for trading dollars, or second, National leadership over sectarian and extremists factions(which has been going on all the time in fluxuations amonst the various national leaders/players, keep their agreements for oil revenues at a "New Reduced Percentage" from the Banks in concert with the U.S. maintaining surface political stature, oil and gas supply lines, and continued arms/drug trades among the partners, and continued heavy U.S. Military support. McCain is being shown the ropes and Business As Usual. The political spectrum of Democrats will not be and are not of consequence. The Bush Administration (Conglomeration) had figured on losing in 2004, and was hoping to "sabatoge" another Democrat and work underneath the public scrutiny, as they did with Iran Hostages to Carter,and Iran-Contra under Reagan's Alzheimers, but the Poll Experiment worked well enough that they had to scramble for excuses to a false war in Iraq, to get the oil rights percentages up to 75% net. McCain is a willing partner, just remember the elimination of S & L's! He was brought in to that venture enabling the wholesale takeover of over 70% of single family mortgages being purchased by the banks for about 25 cents on the dollar! Vote NO ENCUMBANTS BACK IN OUR GOVERNMENT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THREE TERMS!!! Please.

By: spookcatcher on January 10, 2007 at 11:16pm

About midwifing democracy

** The late Jeane Kirkpatrick was appointed by Ronald Reagan as UN Ambassador. She was a major force in neoconservatism, and helped shaped American military, diplomatic and covert actions in the 80s. Here's what she said about the Carter foreign policy at the time:

"Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war." - Full Text