Steve,
It is wishful thinking to imagine that the shortened version and Murtha's version are substantively different. Either we cut and run or we stay. I think Republicans are getting tired of having to be the grown-ups, explaining why Murtha's measure is irresponsible. If Dems think cutting and running is really and truly a good idea, let them vote for Murtha's measure as a substitute. Whatcha wanna bet those who vote for it are counting on the Rs to do the right thing and vote it down? Ahh, the hazards of being taken at one's word....

Mike - why don't you write to your congressional rep as well as Hastert and Blount and ASK THEM why they won't allow a vote on Murtha's resolution??

After all, it was these two who made the decision to propose an alternate wording to the original one already available.

Mike,
So we stay forever---52nd state?

Mike - Take the time to either watch Murther's press conference or read the transcript. (It was on C-SPAN last night.) Then come back, if you have the gall, and discuss maturity and responsibility.

Saddam's gone. New govt elected. 80% of Iraqis want us out. Our presence is a magnet for the worst kind of terrorizing zealots. Unless our goal is to colonize or steal their oil, then wtf are we still doing there?

'Better there than here' is worse than a coward's refrain. If you decide to help your neighbor out and a person who hates you decides to throw rocks at you while you are in your neighbors yard, and these rocks start breaking your neighbor's windows...I mean, would you ever in your wildest dreams say something OUT LOUD like, "Well, better over here than in my yard."

We're killing the people we were suppose to be saving. Our enemies have followed us in and are also killing Iraqis and we have these smarmy, draft dodging, corporate whores in Washington, publicly stating, in front of children even, with an ungodly, horrifying lack of shame, " Better over there...."

The Republicans know that the Democrats will vote against the simplistic "immediately". They will use the vote to say that nobody supports Murtha, not even Murtha. Of course it's a lie, but they've been setting his position up as immediate withdrawal.

Similarly Woodward's testimony will be used to say that Fitzgerald didn't get his facts right because he said in his indictment that Libby was the first official to reveal Plame. Of course this is a lie, too. There's nothing about it in the indictment or press release. According to the transcript of the news conference, Fitgerald referred to this twice. Originally he says Libby was "the first official known to have told a reporter . . ." Later he makes the assertion without using the word "known", but this must be understood in the context of the original statement. Fitzgerald got the facts right.

I see Republicans are requesting an ethics probe of Murtha and his ties to his brother's consulting firm. Who said Karl Rove wasn't in charge anymore?

just an historical aside...

who was the founder of the post ww2 republican party? for all practical purposes, it was former general of the army - dwight david eisenhower.

and what was his major plank in his run for the rose garden? it was to end harry's madcap and homicidal invasion of korea.

ironic isn't it, a republican who served decades in the army, responsible for the investment of thousands of men into maws of death, takes a political position to end a war against godless communism. and wins the election. and does what he says he was going to do - end active hostilities.

i think jack murtha served in harry's korean war and was rescued by ike.

for reasons known only to murtha, he turned a deaf ear to former usmc commandant david shoup. he elected to believe in the villain from the pedernales and reupped to go and kill vietnamese.

perhaps in these last years of his life he has gained eisenhower's understanding.

the dems are so goddam disorganized, so rudderless, so inept....had murtha just used the korean war and ike and his "bring the boys home" as the prologue to his speechifying, he could have thrown the reptillians in the hole.

is there no aspect of the demtillian party that thinks?

"Here's what [crazy Jean] Schmidt said, word for word: "Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through."

so it's name calling for the reality crowd. small penance for saving the lives of our troops.

i say we cut and run. let the next nation put itself on a pedestal.

I think the ferocity of the Republican attacks show the deep sense of panic in their party after the Murtha press conference.

But more than just reflecting the feelings of his constituents, the real problem is that Murtha is probably speaking for many military leaders. Murtha spends a good deal of his time with officers and wouldn't have made this break without consulting them.

I know some dyed in the wool Republican military people at fairly high levels, and they haven't been happy with this war for a while.

I applaud Congressman Murtha's bravery in taking a stand and speaking for those without a voice in this war. Which unfortunately includes a majority of the American people.

Do listen to Murtha's entire presentation. He also is deeply concerned that we are less secure today and that our military is spread so thin with lower rates of reenlistment and recruitment. We don't have the strengrth/depth to fight two major military actions at once. Our equipment is badly damaged and not replaced. He cares about our troops and about how they are the only ones paying the price.

It's not as simple as "cut and run" v. "stay the course." He deserves from readers of this blog who oppose the war at least as much support as we gave Voinovich for his stand against Bolton. He made brave and public declaration, and he does not deserve to be attacked ad hominem.

It took a lot of attempts to get through to his office today to offer support. The number is (202) 225-2065. His website is www.house.gov/murtha.

I

It too

Bush's argument that "leaving = quitting = losing" means we can NEVER leave Iraq under that logic.

Murtha speaks with translucent moral clarity, imho. He knows what bloodshed means, and he's been spending time with those who've lost blood and limbs in Walter Reed. He also speaks with decades of experience regarding war, law, democracy. I hope people listen to him, reflect on that, and respond appropriately.

No one on either side is talking about cutting and running. That is total BS media spin crap.

The issue at its core is that Bush wants to stay the course, meaning that US troops stay in Iraq doing what they are doing. Bush refuses to seek a political solution and believes he can win a military victory in Iraq that will produce the political solution he desires. Bush doesn't care how many soldiers die or how much he degrades the military capability in the process as long as Bush does not have to back down and lose face.

The alternative is to force Bush to admit that the US military has done about all it could do. Military mission was accomplished in 2003 with the fall of Baghdad and ouster of Saddam. Everything since then has been colonial occupation. Bush should have pulled out after Mission accomplished. Once the military mission is accomplished, it must be followed by a political solution.

Bush has failed to find a political solution to Iraq. Bush needs to be told to start working on the political solution because from where I sit, I see no signs that Bush is doing those things necessary to pave the way to ending the Iraq occupation. Indeed he seems to be planning a permanent mission for the US in Iraq.

The American people do not support a permanent US mission in Iraq. Bush needs to understand that Congress is responsive to the people and will not be allowed to support a permanent mission in Iraq indefinitely. Bush needs to hear this, because otherwise, he will not prepare the way for the US to leave Iraq. The reason why it seems we don't have a good way to leave Iraq currently is because Mr Bush has failed to do his job as a politician.

Iraq is a military success and a political failure. Bush and his Republican supporters still think that Iraq is a military failure. Bush needs to own his political failure and take steps to correct his failed policies. Bush should not be allowed to continue to abuse our military to backstop his failed politics. Mr Bush needs to be told to seek a successful political solution.

For those who do not study military history, it is a common misconception that wars of any sort end when one army crushes and annihilates another. This has never been the case. Our own Civil War was ended by a series of agreements. The first and most prominent between RE Lee and Grant at Appomattix, and subsequently the agreement by Johnston to surrender all remaining Confederate troops to Sherman at Raleigh.

Or we can go to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the treaty that followed. You see wars are not about armies annihilating each other. That does not happen because soldiers on both sides wish to survive. DUH. This is why forever and a day, wars have always ended when politicians have agreed to cease hostilities.

Bush is an idiot. He has no military experience. He only has Texas swagger. Bush understands Travis. Bush does not understand Johnston, nor Sherman nor Lee. This is why Congress needs to come down very hard on Bush. Bush is a POLITICAL FAILURE in Iraq. The political failure of Bush is killing our military and dividing our country. Something has to get through to Bush that his political solution for Iraq is FUBAR. Everyone who loves this country needs to send that message to Bush. You WILL find a POLITICAL solution to Iraq that will bring our troops home!!! American Patriots will accept no less.

This is Viet Nam revisited.
A public out cry for a new direction, a new plan
and maybe even a little hint of what our strategy is in Iraq...
and day by day more troops die.
But Bush/Cheney will stay the course.
We will be there as long as Bush is in office.
After tonight, how can Republicans support ANY withdrawal?
Murtha for President -:)

Well, the PNAC neocons were sure that their Iraq invasion would be greeted with roses and gratitude. Surprise, their foreign policy experiment in imperialism has been a disastrous failure, both socially and fiscally, and yet they expect the United States residents to greet them with accolades and votes. Guess they weren't expecting dissent within our borders. 0 for 2. When will the real Republicans take back their party already?

I sincerely hope that weekend newspapers carry the headline "HOUSE OVERWHELMINGLY REJECTS DUNCAN HUNTER'S AND GOP'S PROPOSAL OF IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWL."

Mr. Bush prides himself on his rigid ideological stances. He never admits to mistakes, he never changes his mind. If reality differs from the Bush world view, then reality is wrong and Bush is right.

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time. Rep. Murtha's message forced Republicans to think about a patriotic person opposing the war - placing them squarely in cognitive dissonance, Small wonder they're lashing out...

Steve,
I love the title to this article. Short, True and to the point.

bakho: Very well said.

I respect all the posters here at thewashingtonnote so please help me out here.

I have a question for all those who say: "we're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here".

With our borders unprotected, especially the southern border and with only approximately one percent of the containers coming into the ports of this country inspected, what makes you think that we are all that safe here after all?

Could our military be better utilized here to help with "Homeland Security"? I don't know.

Oh, and could someone please explain to me what the phrase "stay the course" means? It appears to me (just my opionion) that it means our military members continue to be killed and maimed until we just run out of them since the recruiting numbers are continuing to drop.

I don't mean anything flaming or demeaning, I would just like answers to these questions.

Murtha wasn't just speaking his own mind. The subtext of his speech is that he is saying what the majority of his military contacts are saying and cannot express. (Howard Fineman confirmed this aspect of the importance of Murtha's remarks yesterday evening on "Hardball".)

How long can a war be fought when the sacrifice is borne only by the soldiers and their families? The troops in theatre are painfully aware of the corruption that has resulted in the politically connected looting millions of dollars sent to the Pentagon, while the troops get recalled or no body armor, slashed health care, three-tour endless deployments, bait-and-switch promises of bonuses and salaries, broken families, bodies, lives.

The Republicans should be very, very cautious to advocate "staying the course" in such a situation. What will it take for them to realize that the present situation is simply not working? A military coup?

Mike, who would you believe as the bearer of this message? You obviously don't believe Murtha, and you don't want to see the facts as they are because you are so determined to see the outcome that you want.

Would it take Colin Powell? Norman Schwartzkopf? Every single officer on the JCS? Who must tell you for you to finally understand that this gamble has failed and that we cannot fix it to be the way we want? How many more soldiers and citizens get killed before you say "enough"?

Why do you insist on clinging to the pipedreams spun by a group of men who have never seen combat and have no idea of what it actually means, instead of listening to the men who do this for a living?

......and the results are in....it's Wexler, McKinney and Serrano.....wouldn't you know it. Surprising that it took looking in 6 reports on this to find the names of the Troika, the Terrible Triplets. Grandstanders all.

By monday morning most of you will learn that Rumsfeld has on his desk a plan for withdrawal of US forces starting after the Dec. 15 elections. The plan, of course, has various target objectives in it, and is consistent with maintaining troop safety throughout the withdrawal. I guess that it should be called the military's proposed implementation of the Murtha Proposal. I sure am glad the house voted so strongly against withdrawal last night, because it would be a shame if we didn't keep our troops in Iraq forever.

President Bush has called an "early" withdrawal a "recipe for disaster". Well, that guy sure knows how to cook up a disaster, so I guess he knows the recipe. I might suggest that he is a little confused about the order of ingredients; it was actually an early invasion that was the key ingredient in the existing disaster.

peace,
on earth,
jim

We need our representatives to be honest, both with the executive branch and themselves.

Our republican representatives must admit to themselves and us that they have entered their own twilight zone. Only fantasy describes the positions they are taking now. Only cowardice describes the positions they are supporting.

"Staying the course" at any time that facts are against you is the equivalent of shouting "Lalalalalala..." in defense of your "mistakes". Normally, this is the cry of criminals who are desperately defending their enterprises. I personally doubt that these are not normal times, and that those who are still defending the murder of my military personnel are profiting from these murders.

Our country needs us to put the loudmouthed minority of neocon supporters in their place. They must be awakened from their fantasy of dominating the US, and made to support our preservation. In this case, the armchair warriors MUST be led to water and FORCED to drink. They must be deprogrammed from hating Liberalism, and taught to moderate their positions with healthy doses of reality. We are no longer in the business of forcing nations to be clones of the US, we are in the business of surviving this criminal administration, and protecting our nation from the INSIDE.

We have been robbed of the progress against indebtness. We have been robbed of our honorable reputation. We have been robbed of our economic success, and we are still being robbed of the lives of our children through the use of their willingness to be obedient to their leaders. It is way past time to arrest, prosecute and convict these leaders who so willingly spend our future pursuing the demise of our nation.

We must order out troops out of Iraq. Immediately would indeed be best, but orderly and firmly is better for the future of our country. Withdrawal can be as reasonable as Congressman Murtha has planned, or as humiliating as Viet Nam and Somalia.

I do not want to be responsible for the deaths and lifetime maiming of my little brothers and sisters in the pursuit of the "goals" of the NeoConservative Conspiracy. I want the children of the United States to be returned to my life as people who have been deceived but educated as to why propaganda can kill.

We must NOT "stay" the course of this war. We must get along in this world, before this world accelerates further our disgraced journey into history. We must no longer allow our nation to be robbed and raped by people who beat their chests as they hide behind the lives of our children.

WE MUST GET RID OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBVERTED THE POLICY OF CONSERVATISM, even if we can only convict them of yelling FIRE in the theatre of our lives.

Congressional Republicans are desperate for some good news out of Iraq. Their panic will only increase as as the midterms loom. "Stay the course" and "as long as it takes" are beginning to look like poison, as is the President himself.

I have long suspected that, if necessary, Republicans could manufacture their own good news with highly publicized troop withdrawals, however modest, before the midterms. This was their ace in the hole. Murtha's visible and effective theater has just made playing that card much more difficult and complicated. No wonder they are as mad as wet hens.

When Murtha made his remarks I posted a comment on a Kos diary noting that this was a MAJOR MAJOR move and one that was going to cause BIG problems for the GOP.

Murtha is in the Scoop Jackson mould of Democrats....TOUGH on military issues and as others have noted here, his comments are not just his own, but reflect the information he gets from his constant contact with the military establishment AND with regular soldiers -- many of them now in military hospitals recovering from wounds received in combat.

Murtha doesn't speak to the press much, but he has built a reputation in Congress which is very strong and deeply respected. As a Kos poster noted, Murtha actually helped swing support for Howard Dean's appointment as Democratic Party Chairman with a statement that while he didn't always agree with Dean on every issue, he felt Dean had a good sense of the party's problems and a program to address them. Soon after that, other members of the party said they felt t hey needed to give Dean a second look.

The White House knew immediately that Murtha was a big problem for them.....that is why they (Rove) are pulling out the slime guns.

And you have to love Jeanne Schmidt who begins by making her statement in Congress yesterday afternoon and saying she has a message for Congressman Murtha which implies that he is a coward....and in virtually the same breath then says her remarks were not directed at any single member of Congress.

They don't even bother to worry about lying any more....just pile it on.

Jim Preston, I think you might very well be on to something. I'm so glad you noted the plan that has arrived on Rummie's desk at the same time the Republicans have attempted to force the Democrats' hand on withdrawals of troops from Iraq.

What do you think of this? As a conservative Republican, I know many in my party in both the Senate and the House are exceptionally concerned about 2006. I suppose Rove and the President,,are concerned,too. Now, the President cannot appear to want to prematurely withdraw troops especially while the Democrats and moderate Republicans are demanding it. To do so would be to admit he's failed, but what an expert way to call the Democrats on their dissent, making it look like only Republicans support the troops on paper, while at the same time implementing a plan that is really no different from the one offered by the Democrats. It seems Cheney and Rove are back at the helm.

I would respectfully suggest to both of those gents, however, that most Americans are no longer going to easily buy their sometimes clever yet often inappropriate plans especially when promiments members of their party - memebers who went to great lengths to avoid military service -make such dastardly venomous and unfounded personal attacks against patriots such as Congressman Murtha simply because they disagree.

On another note, for those of you out there, who've asked what the hell does "stay the course mean", I'll tell you. It means, no matter how or why we got into this debacle of the Iraq War in the first place, we have to help the Iraqis successfully establish some sort of reaonable government that's capable of taking care of its people and capable of defending itself against enemies such as Iran. Although I question even today why in the hell we went to Iraq in the first place, we have to support our troops in their endeavors to "stay the course". If we don't and either the President pulls them back or Congress pulls them back premmaturely, then, chaos will very likely ensue leading to a power vacuum or, worse, with a puppet such as Chalabi in power, we might be forced to send thousands of more troops into the Middle East at a later time in order to fight an enemy such as Iran that, empowered by their new found ally and former enemy Iraq, is even a more formidable enemy to us.

With a new secretary of defense, one who can command the respect of the troops and the mainstream public, a President who's willing to admit mistakes and correct them, a Vice-President who's willing to work with Congress and not strongarm it, and a Secretary of State who's willing to work hard for diplomacy, by staying the course we might just succeed. Since it seems we only have the last one of the four, "staying the course" will be a very difficult task in deed for our troops and that's why we must do everything in our power to support them in their endeavors.

Although I disagree with Congressman Murtha and Senator Hagel on this one point, I agree with them on a variety of other issues and I welcome anyone who has the experience and knowledge they do to step forward and share their views. We should encourage those in the public arena who have such experience to step forward and speak, not vilify them. I only wish those whom I helped elect to office had the same maturity and respect to view things the same way I do.

Why does anyone in their right mind expect BushCo to have an exit strategy? They lied so much to justify invading Iraq, it's clear they WANT TO BE THERE.

Since neither staying the course or cutting and running are acceptable options, why don't Dem leaders call for a greater role by the UN? As we withdraw, why can't UN Peacekeepers come in and UN Special Advisors to help them develope their governmental infrastructure? The Sunnis requested that the UN play a greater role, as well as the Arab League, so why not?

The answer is that BushCo doesn't give a flying F***K about Iraqi government, only who signs the oil oleases giving American companies CONTROL over Iraq's oil resources. And besdies, peace is not profitable if you own defense shares. They want war. W stands for Wall to Wall War.

Murtha has also given voice to an idea that seems to be emerging, slowly, across the political spectrum. Almost everyone has assumed to date that Iraq was a solvable problem. Do A then B and follow with C and reach an acceptable result. The arguments have been about such things as was A big enough, should C really follow B or could they happen simultaneously, is B properly constituted, is the result worth the expense. Problem solving.

Murtha seems to be saying that Iraq can't be solved by us because WE are the problem. If this idea is accepted as a premise then staying the course, fiddling with numbers or reaching for milestones are, by definition, futile exercises. Our removal becomes the solution. There are, of course, lots of potential problems with this approach, both practical and political, but it will be interesting to see if this "re-think" begins to gain traction amongst Democrats and the public.

first of all, Jean Schmidt didnt call Murtha anything- A serving Marine did. Just shoot the messenger and obfuscate the message.

Second, if anyone of you seriously think that if Murtha's resolution passed, that IMMEDIATELY, repeat, IMMEDIATELY, it would be rightly construed as get them out NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Some clown said Truman's invasion of Korea??? Is that what you are reduced to? Bald faced lies??? Ike got us out of Korea alright, when the situation was stabilized nad the Korean people, 50 years later, are still free.

I see all the posts saying that "stay the course" is going to be a recipe for electoral disaster for the Repub's. Funny, I think stay the course won a million-3.

What is the problem for you people to tell what you stand for?? I have spoken with SOOOOOOO many ultra liberals who want us out of Iraq yesterday. Why don't your elected officials cut the hyperbole and say what you want them to say? Because after 2006 there would be a lot less liberal elected officials. You have to lie to gain power. Pathetic.

You mean a living version of a John Wayne character. Or a living version of the man John Wayne thought he had become.

Of course, John Wayne never served in the armed forces. John Ford took a break from Hollywood and joined the Navy. Making documentaries them including filming the Battle of Midway. He ended up with the rank of Commander.

Ford used to tease John Wayne mercilessly about this: that he was an able-bodied male who didn't fight, yet he played muy-macho heros on the screen. Biographers speculate that Wayne's hawkish jingoism developed as way of compensating for this.

Amazing. It's obvious that many on this blog believe (a) Bush lied and (b) Cut & Run is the prudent action to take.
When the Repubs point this out and/or force the Dims to say yeh or nay, the leftoids jump into action and screem bloody murder on just about every tangential issue except the one at hand.
You got Proof Bush lied? Present the documents. He'll lose support from everyone. If you don't, shut your pie hole!
If you truly believe the Murta res and what they voted on was fundamentally different, then I suggest you get an English speaking adult to sign all legal papers for you from now on.

Kathleen, you wrote: "Why does anyone in their right mind expect BushCo to have an exit strategy? They lied so much to justify invading Iraq, it's clear they WANT TO BE THERE."

You've touched on something important. Dem's have gone after BushCo for sometime about the incompetence displayed in their execution of the way. The GOP just kinda ignores it. Meh, no biggie.

But look at how they've reacted to 2 recent lines of attack: the twisting of intelligence in the run-up to war, and the idea of withdrawing from Iraq. Being in Iraq means an awful lot, enough to have them absolutely freak out if pushed.

Consider the following other dots to connect:
-Cheney energy task force, oil execs seeing maps of Iraqi oil fields and the recent "gotcha" moment, wherein those execs lied about all that, courtesy of Sen Lautenberg and the WashPo document revelation.
-Factor in Paul O'Neill's remembrance of the first (cabinet? nsc?) meetings of the administration talking about Iraq.
-Factor in Wolfowitz and Bush, reported to have been zeroing in on Iraq while the embers on Ground Zero were still smoldering, talking about how this was to time to tie Iraq and the rest of the middle east all up together.
-Factor in Wolfowitz talking in Vanity Fair about WMD/Mushroom Cloud being just one of many reasons the administration had developed about going to war.
-And if you want to don your tinfoil, think PNAC. But really, you could just as easily leave them out. There's enough otherwise to paint the picture.

Clearly, we have a group of men who, come hell or high water, intended to first conquer, and then own and occupy Iraq, and would let nothing (nothing!) stand in the way of those goals. No tactic too low, no lie too brazen, nothing else mattered - no matter what, just take Iraq!

Yesterday's tantrum on the Hill is a reflection of the panic they're beginning to feel now that Dems and others are starting to pull on the threads which will unravel all their plans (which remain to this day somewhat murky. oil? protect israel?). The ugliness of the rhetoric is proportional to the fear they feel now that the thing they so covet is in danger.

Yesterday also illustrated something else, once and for all. There are no longer 3 co-equal branches of government. That's broken. The current regime in Congress and the White House are one the same, and to all our collective detriment, there's no any meaningful differentiation btw Bush, Frist, DeLay, Blount, etc. There's just the GOP in Washington, and it is determined to retain Iraq.

Aye aye, Mate! I thinks I smell a troll a clickin in yonder waves...Are y'who y'really claim to be? Or just a troll aimen to divide and conquer? If a troll, might as well go find another fishin spot.

The navy comment's intended for TimMac...

"On another note, for those of you out there, who've asked what the hell does "stay the course mean", I'll tell you. It means, no matter how or why we got into this debacle of the Iraq War in the first place, we have to help the Iraqis successfully establish some sort of reaonable government that's capable of taking care of its people and capable of defending itself against enemies such as Iran. Although I question even today why in the hell we went to Iraq in the first place, we have to support our troops in their endeavors to "stay the course". If we don't and either the President pulls them back or Congress pulls them back premmaturely, then, chaos will very likely ensue leading to a power vacuum or, worse, with a puppet such as Chalabi in power, we might be forced to send thousands of more troops into the Middle East at a later time in order to fight an enemy such as Iran that, empowered by their new found ally and former enemy Iraq, is even a more formidable enemy to us."

I completely disagree. First, as things are now going, if left to their own devices, the Iraqi majority not only has NO NEED to "protect themselves from Iran", they actually seek, and are achieving, a closer alliance with Iran. The numbers alone work in favor of a Shiite theocracy. THE ONLY way for Bush to buck those numbers is to install a puppet government. An electoral process only further cements the Shiite hold on power. There is NO WAY that Israel will abide a Shiite theocracy blossoming imediately next door, nor will the neo-cons look favorably at Iran gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields. The escalation in violence, I believe, is NURTURED by the Israelis and our presence, and is DESIGNED to weaken the present Shiite hold on power. Bremer COMPLETELY BOTCHED the designs that Bush's handlers invisioned for Iraq, and the election results were completely polar to their original plans. Sistani looked behind the curtains, didn't like what he saw, and came out swinging. He out camel-traded these fanatics behind the Bush monkey, and he has effectively blocked the efforts to privatize and sell off the Iraqi assets to foreign investors. The violence you now see is all DESIGNED to de-construct this clusterfuck so the neo-cons can get the whole thing "back on track". "Staying the course", at this point means killing a WHOOOOOLE lot of people, blaming it on the "evil doers" like this made for TV character "Zarqawi", all so we can wrest the reins out of Sistani's hands before an Iranian influence in Iraq becomes irreversable.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that our troops are coming home anytime soon, because if they do, Bush will have literally DOUBLED the population and the size of IRAN. Bush has to undo this entire God damned mess, and start again from scratch. THATS where the so called "insurgency" comes in. Also, a terrorist attack HERE, that could be shown to have direct ties to the "insurgency" in Iraq would go far to enhance the monkey's ability to pursue this charade further. That is what I believe just happened in Jordan. A false flag black op, that sought to directly implicate the boogie man, Al Qaeda, with the Iraq "insurgency". However, I do not think it worked as well as these bastards had invisioned. The nexrt attack will be HERE, it will be a black op, and it will be a doozy. Logic dictates their next move, and God knows these people are evil enough, have the motivation, and will stop at NOTHING to achieve their goals.

"You got Proof Bush lied? Present the documents. He'll lose support from everyone. If you don't, shut your pie hole!"

Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post

http://bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

I remember in the Democratic Primary debates, someone incredulously asked Dennis Kucinich how we could possilbly leave Iraq now, after we'd invaded. Mind you, this was when things were bad in Iraq, but a hell of a lot better than they seem to be now.

He said we do as we've always done: Declare Victory, and leave.

I really think that using the term "Cut and Run" is insulting. There are ways to do this responsibly--it can take time, but if we start the process immediately (not end it, mind you, but start it now) lives would be saved.

As for the argument that things would get so bad we'd have to come back later to fight Iran or something--I think that violent conflict with Iran or Syria seems MORE probable with us still so highly engaged, rather than LESS probable. But this is debateable and complex, perfect for a high-level blog, and it's nice that saper aude (see today at 11:50) seems a respectful sort of debater/blog commenter. Wesley Clark has some thoughts on this I know.

If Bush declared Victory, and left those permanent bases we've paid for, I'd be thrilled. That would be victory, in my mind. So what if some think it's a lie. Like Jeanne Schmidt showed on Friday, lying doesn't seem to mean a thing anymore to so many in power now. It's not like the rest of the world believes Bush when he says "We do not torture"...

Who the heck are going to send to Iraq next year or the year after that? Since BushCo and other Rethugs think we have endless supply of young bodies to send to Iraq (alas, not an endless supply of body armor).

What are waiting for? The Iraqis will have to prove they want this "democracy" by fighting for it some point anyway. We defeated the tyrant (Mission Accomplished), and now it's time to hand the country over to those to whom it belongs: Iraqis.

Get our troops out of there and stop building permanent bases. Or we really going to be there forever?

Reading PO'd American's posting it's an interesting coincidence that senior Chinese and Palestinian defense officials were victims of the Jordanian bombing.

Add to that Keith Olberman's report on the correlation of terror alerts and embarrassing Republican incidents which need to be kept out of the news.

I agree with Dee Dee Myers assertion that given a choice between conspiracy and chaos we should pick chaos, but I am beginning to wonder if there are any limits on what people will do to move their political agenda forward.

An American journalist reported Iraqi election fraud so blatant that they have tape of one man openly filling out seven ballots. I doubt any Iraqi believes they will end up with a freely elected government.

With permanent American bases and a puppet regime installed, I don't think any Iraqi will believe we've helped them achieve a new statehood. Which will mean an ongoing and probably growing insurgency and a weak defense.

Only by the US pulling out will the Iraqi people ever believe that they should come together and work for a united Iraq.

They're a 5,000 year old civilization and the idea that they can only make it with American training wheels is both arrogant and absurd.

Sorry to keep posting, but I just watched this great video clip of Rep. Murtha on Chris Matthew's Hardball. He's very convincing. It's clear he wants us 100% out, but not some immediate cut and run.

"Stay the course" is a campaign slogan that was effective for Ronald Reagan, and since the only thing this administration has proved adept at is slash-and-burn PR, I think they think it's something that will resonate with the base and allow them to not have to explain anything.

It's been pointed out, and I believe it, that the administration campaigns rather than governs, and everything boils down to consolidating executive power. What better way to maximize that than by declaring war? Remember the gleeful look on the president's face when he declared, "I'm a wartime president!" There are plenty of principled conservatives out there whose philosophies I disagree with, but can acknowledge that they do have ideas with which they seek to build a better, fairer world. George Bush and the members of his administration seem willing to say whatever it will take to achieve short-term, power-consolidating goals, consequences be damned.

There is no "course." There is only "stay."

Dems should introduce immediately after the recess, a resolution calling for a limit on the amount of tours any soldier can serve in theater in Iraq.

And after that, a resolution calling for the immediate reinstatement of the draft. Who the heck cares if Rummsfeld opposes it. Rummy wanted to invade Iraq with 40,000 troops.

"You have to lie to gain power. Pathetic."

Takes one to know one.

Actually, there's a lot of truth to this. No American politician -- or very few -- dare to oppose the notion of an Empire of Liberty that the US can and should lead.

Pissed Off American, once again you serve your name well. Never more pissed off have you sounded than today. That being said, I respect your insight and your passion.

POA, or any of your compadres who think our only reasonable option is to withdraw, please, answer a few questions.

1. Do the Iraqis have adequate numbers, equipment, and training to sustain themselves? (Last time, I checked the stats, the answer would seem, "No," , and, in contrast to some of the criticism I received in some of the posts, I am not suggesting the Iraqis need our assistance because they are inferior in nature. No, instead I am being practical. You can't defend yourself against much anything if, for example, you have only one battalion with viable armored vehicles and tanks.)
2. Please give me a thoughtful explanation of what will most likely occur in Iraq after we leave? In other words, will there be civil unrest or peace and, if you say civil unrest, what will the Iraqis do to adequately contain that unrest?
3. Although our image around the world is pretty much crap at this time, what does withdrawing our troops tell those who wish to harm us at home? Does it improve our image? If so,please expand. I am interested in hearing a different opinion.(Of course, you can only answer that if you will agree with me to stipulate we do have one or two genuine enemies out there and not all of them are black ops.)
4. Would you have even a slightly different opinion, if suddenly President Bush (and President-in-the shadows Cheney) decided to considerably up the numbers of troops in an effort to better secure the borders, replace Secretary Rumsfeld with someone such as Senator McCain or Sam Nunn, signed the anti-torture bill, encouraged/supported Congress to get to the bottom and ultimately punish those contractors such as Haliburton who've milked the CPA dry, and replaced John Bolton with someone who was determined to improve the UN using not force but instead diplomatic pressure? In other words, although what I've suggested has about as much a chance of happening as pigs flying, do you want to pull the troops because they have failed and the mission's simply impossible, or, because, difficult as the mission is to achieve, our President and various members of his administration have been their own worst enemy and, ultimately, either by negligence or incompetence helped make a seemingly near impossible mission even more so?

In hindsight, I wish Bush had never started this mess. That being said, now, that it's in full swing, we must carefully consider all of the consequences that might occur if we choose to act in one way or the other. Had our public leaders so carefully and deliberately done the same thing a few years ago, we might not be in this mess to begin with, and, although, I respect your passion and find your name somewhat witty, POA, in my humble view, now, is the time for reasonable people such as us to work together to find a solution. Otherwise we are simply part of the problem.

Lastly - and I apologize Steve for posting verbose comment - I greatly disagree that Bush would profit from another domestic terror attack. Perhaps, that's what Karl Rove and Dick Cheney might think, but after the many mistakes this Amdinistration has made, especially after their pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, it is my opinion that if another incident the likes of 9/11 were to happen, President Bush would be impeached.

"POA, or any of your compadres who think our only reasonable option is to withdraw, please, answer a few questions"

I have not advocated pulling out. I have merely described the situation as I believe it exists. I see no way out of this clusterfuck that does not involve an American military presence. What has to change is the MOTIVE behind that presence. Having had said that, if this was MY clusterfuck to straighten out I would start by the immediate indictment, very openly with ALOT of media exposure, of ALL the major players in the torture scandals, such as Sanchez and Ashcroft. I would then make a very public display of Rumsfeld's immediate firing. I would, during this period, be involving the Sunnis, the Shiites, the kurds, the UN, and the surrounding Arab states in round table discussions into a peaceful resolution of the "insurgency" in Iraq, and I would assume a very out front role in attempting to mediate a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. One thing is for sure, if this ignorant monkey in the White House wants to resolve ANYTHING in the middle east, he has to shut the hell up and stop sputtering his cowboy inanities and appointing rabid fanatics like Bolton to carry our torches.

And BTW, you aren't going to impeach ANYONE if this monkey calls a "red alert" here, or imposes martial law due to another terrorist attack. I honestly believe you underestimate the lengths these people have already gone to, to say nothing of the lengths they are capable of going to.

Steve, I think you want to say " something that's NOT just an amorphous..." etc. Or am I misreading it?

sapere aude, these questions were not directed towards me, even indirectly I think, but here it goes.

1. I think it is important to determine against what they would have to defend themselves. It seems that we have had three enemies since the end of the invasion. Foreign fighters and local recruits associated with AQ in Iraq, Sunni bathists, and Shi'ite's like Sadr. It seems a certainty that while AQ in Iraq's recruitment pool will dry up that they won't just leave Iraq unless given reason to. Since they have been blowing up Shi'ite mosques, I thinnk that people like Sadr have more than enough reason already to push them out. This will involve lots of violence but nothing rising to the level of a civil war. Alot depends on the motivations behind Sadr's militia. They could be motivated primarily by nationalistic considerations or primarily by religious ones. If the latter than I agree that the Iraqi government will have a problem after we leave and so we need to figure out some way to fix that, either through leaving some troops or trying to put together an international force that doesn't include us. What I think is more likely though is that the mahdi army is motivated more by nationalism than fundamentalist Islam. I know that the very name 'mahdi' and the fact that they are led by a fundamentalist cleric suggests that this is not true, but we have seen such situations before. Ho Chi Minh was pretty clearly more a nationalist than a communist, but presented himself and his organization as a communist revolution from start to finish. If Sadr's people are more nationalistic than fundamentalist then I don't think they will continue an armed resistance, unless it appears that the current government is nothing but a puppet regime for the US. I think something similar goes for the bathists. I think that taking some precautions beforehand and making sure that we respect the sovreignty of Iraq afterward might make it the case that the Iraqi government won't have nearly as much to deal with as we do now.
2. I think I already said what I think might happen.
3. I am not sure what it would do for our reputation. It will make us look like we lost a guerilla war. That probably wont do anything to convince the Chinese that we are likely to lose a war over Taiwan. The only people who it could embolden are people who would fight a guerilla war against us if they fought us. That suggests that some smaller countries might be bolder in taking on some of our smaller allies (since they might trust that we do not have the stomach for an occupation), but I doubt that it would make us look weak enough to attack directly. I think it is almost a certainty that our reputation among those who should be our allies (the West) will improve. But also I don't see how this is a relevant consideration. The primary arguments for getting out are moral ones. Many people are dying. I do not see how protecting our rep could possibly be a reason to stay, given the costs.
4. I would not. Some might, I would not. I do not think that the problem is that we are trying to do a good thing, but screwing up the details. I think that Bush and Co. are trying to do a very bad thing, and screwing up the details. I don't think the war was or is now about the promotion of democracy, I think it is about the promotion of US interests concerning oil, trade and our ability to project power in the region. If they got competent people to do the job, I think it would result in an unjust situation for Iraqi's and a less stable region. This is not a veiw that all share though, and is not essential to the 'troops out now' point.

Is Murthy really more serious than other democrats or republicans? I don't think so. Once a Cheney lover always a Cheney lover. He cares no more for American service people or Iraqis than Bush. The reason he is speaking up now is because public opinion is changing and elections are on the horizon.

Listen very carefully to his statements. He, along with the rest of congress, is not for getting American forces out of the Middle East. He said redeploy. Redeploy American forces to the fourteen enduring military bases in Iraq, and to other military bases spread throughout the Middle East. And use our B52's, our gun ships, our Apache helicopters, our curise missiles, etc. to pulverize the hell out of those Iraqi "terrorist" bastards whenever we get bored or just feel like it.

That's right. Save our precious oil sources. Save our troops and votes. But don't give a damn about killing more innocent victims. Peace will come to the Middle East only when all of our military forces are out. We'll know Murthy is serious when he calls for redeploying all American forces back to The United States and keeping them in The United States. Let American forces defend The United States within our borders. That's what a defensive force is for.

Sapere Aude,

Dare to be wise and answer the question following yours:

"1. Do the Iraqis have adequate numbers, equipment, and training to sustain themselves? "

Who are these Iraqis you are talking about?

but they've been setting his position up as immediate withdrawal.

When actually Murtha's and the Democrats' position is immediate surrender to the terrorists. They have become the party of traitors who have allied themselves with alQaeda in a political war against the Republicans.

Murtha's overt call for troop withdrawal has sparked a debate that needs to happen. In fact, it's long overdue. While it may not actually result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, it may bring about a much-needed discussion of why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish. And this is where the issue begins to get really, really sticky.

Clearly the Bush administration and, in particular, the neo-conservatives ensconced at the Pentagon, have plans for the military beyond just Iraq. Iraq gives them a central base of operations from which to intimidate and potentially attack surrounding regimes in countries such as Iran and Syria. To bring the troops home would completely unravel their grand plans, and I don't think they're going to give in so easily.

There's no question that Rep. Murtha's points should be well-taken. Either implement a strategy to win the conflict in quick fashion or get the hell out. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

But I go back to the neo-con agenda, which isn't to win quickly and get out. They have no intentions of leaving the area militarily. In fact, a quagmire, per se, suits their aims as well as anything, along with a President and Vice President who bait their own constituents - the American people - with the "Americans don't run and hide" or "Americans don't give up" propaganda. Consequently, we're forced to remain indefinitely.

We have to come to the realization that this is not, in fact, a war. It is an elaborate mind game. And the neo-cons must control the minds of Americans in order to effect their grand vision for the Middle East... and the world. Even the other key players in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and Israel, know that their respective futures are in doubt without direct U.S. involvement in the region. The attacks of 9/11 happened for a reason. Never underestimate that as the rest of the neo-con agenda unfolds and the mind game continues.

For a man of few words, Murtha took an awful lot longer to make his point than the Republican resolution did. Cut to the chase. Call bullshit, bullshit. Democrat hangwringers are pathetic.

the Iraqi military

And, in defense of Murtha, although he originally supported the war, he's been out there for months criticizing it. He changed his mind about the war a long time ago. To suggest he only came out, now, when it was easier to do so, is purely baseless.

"When actually Murtha's and the Democrats' position is immediate surrender to the terrorists. They have become the party of traitors who have allied themselves with alQaeda in a political war against the Republicans."

Posted by patriot325

Al Qaeda is Bush's private little army of boogie men, created for the express purpose of providing his agenda with a justification.

And if ANYONE has worked to the BENEFIT of radical Islamic factions, it is BUSH. He is their top recruiter. And the loss of freedoms that his so called "war on terror" has imposed on us is a victory for the terrorists as well.

Then we have blathering fools like yourself that think it is "patriotic" to spout the kind of ignorant drivel such as I quoted from you. This clusterfuck in Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. It has to do with a group of inept fanatics that thought they had a grand design to steal the Iraqi oilfields and establish a military stronghold between Israel and its enemies. And they have botched the job miserably.

Under L. Paul Bremer the Third, we disbanded and dismissed the regular Iraqi military. They were Baathist and were, therefore, not to be trusted. This was a mistake of huge proportions which set up the conditions for the present chaos. When we needed help in the north, we used the peshmergas, pitting Kurds against Iraqi Arabs. This did not help the cause of democracy in Iraq. And then, the establishment of a transitional government and the writing and ratification of a constitution for the further development of the government were irreparably compromised, as a consequence of the increasing pressure from the growing insurgency which we fostered and fueled with the initial disbanding of the regular army.

But let's not forget all the other spanners we threw in the works, just for fun: the failure to provide oversight of reconstruction contracts, the hiring of ex-felons to handle redevelopment projects, the appointment of blustering, ignorant Bernard Kerik to set up the Iraqi police, the lack of oversight of mercenaries and private security forces which lead, among other things, to the sorts of reckless behavior that precipitated the horror of Fallujah.

Hey, Steve (Clemons),POA, and the rest of your compadres, if you aren't pissed off already, you will certainly be pissed after you read James Bamford's new article for Rolling Stone magazine. I almost fell off my seat when I started reading it. Bamford is a credible journalist. I only hope he's got someone watching his back. Maybe he can get a referral for a security guard from Colonel Wilkerson. Damn,after reading it, I think I'm going to vomit. I've never been so depressed.
Here's the address: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12819.

"But let's not forget all the other spanners we threw in the works, just for fun: the failure to provide oversight of reconstruction contracts, the hiring of ex-felons to handle redevelopment projects, the appointment of blustering, ignorant Bernard Kerik to set up the Iraqi police, the lack of oversight of mercenaries and private security forces which lead, among other things, to the sorts of reckless behavior that precipitated the horror of Fallujah."

Posted by Aunt Deb

Golly Deb, you forgot the part about failing to protect and secure the weapons depots, which resulted in countless tons of explosives disappearing into the hands of who knows who.

"Hey, Steve (Clemons),POA, and the rest of your compadres.........."

A clarification here. Clemons, and myself, have NEVER exchanged comments on this blog or anywhere else. My assumption is that my rhetoric is too blunt for Steve, and perhaps woeefully simplistic because of my inability to tap the full range of sources he does. I DO NOT presume to be a "compadre" of Steve Clemons. Nor should my comments on his blog imply a melding of our opinions. Steve can speak for himself, quite well, obviously, and I am just a poster here. Period. Please do not presume intellectual or ideological alliances where non exist. My bet is that Steve would prefer that I never landed here.

Sapere Aude....

Along the same lines....

The LA Times stops carrying Scheer's column, yet days later prints a 13 page expose' such as I linked to. I don't trust the LA Times anymore, and have cancelled my subscription. Really, it appears to me that this article is just another attempt to plant the blame for this clusterfuck in Iraq on the CIA. But when one reads the article that Sapere Aude supplied, one sees, as many of us saw from the beginning, that the Cheney Cabal did not want ACCURATE intelligence, they wanted HELPFUL intelligence. And if the intelligence did not fit their needs, it was discarded.

Oooooops. Sorry, heres the address.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,1,4140621.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Murtha didn't arrive at his conclusions by reading blogs, attending A List dinner parties, or talking to political spinmeisters.

Murtha - unlike anyone in the Bush Admin, BTW - visits soldiers and soldiers families constantly. He goes to Walter Reed every week. He's in touch with commanders in the Pentagon; the ones who are actually keeping an eye on what's going on in Iraq, the ones actually implementing strategies.

Murtha is, in other words, talking to people the White House won't listen to: the ones actually doing the fighting.

So when he says our current war plan is unsustainable and doomed, he a) knows what he's talking about; and b) is speaking for people the Bush Admin and the GOP ignore.

Those who attack Murtha have no clear facts and figures, no clear strategy, and no real understanding of the issue. All they have is loyalty to Bush and their own twisted fantasies of conquest. That trumps everything else, including American national security, American values, and even human decency.

The number of Bush supporters is quickly being reduced to foul, scurrilous, sadistic, anti-American pissants.

Since the number of troops will be down (WAY down) by OUR election day in NOV2006, I have to wonder what is the difference between what will happend then and what Murtha is recomending. AND since commanders on the ground have already predicted significant reductions in force for 2006 why isn't that giving the terrorist hope, embolding the enemy, etc. etc like Murtha.

Also it's worth remembering that Murtha didn't reach his conclusion alone. That ole Bull has some pals at the Pentagon (eithr current or retired) who helped him put it together.

the discussion of troop levels by congressmen on the left and the right gettin ridiculous. If the GOP is insulted by Murtha's request then they shoud pretent it's not a request but a very good prediction of what the GOP will do next year when they reduce troop levels in Iraq in order to save their own backsides.

I'd like to hear Mike's opinon on this...on the specific: Does he think troop levels reduce next year and the commanders on the ground in IRaq are predicting? And if so will it be and act that gives hope to terrorist? To those two specifics and answer please.

"I'd like to hear Mike's opinon on this...on the specific: Does he think troop levels reduce next year and the commanders on the ground in IRaq are predicting? And if so will it be and act that gives hope to terrorist? To those two specifics and answer please."
Posted by Charles

All of you seem to make predictions based on the CURRENT state of affairs. This Administration CREATES the situations and events that justify policy. Instead of constructing policy around situations and events, they construct situations and events to fit pre-ordained policy. Imagine an alledged Syrian incursion into Iraq that results in the deaths of 120 American GIs. Under such a scenario, can you imagine ANYONE in Washington being an advocate of troop reduction? Again, I think there is, across the board, an underestimation of the lengths these people will go to to pursue policy. Surely, by now, most here must realize this boondoggle in Iraq was misrepresented in every way, but foremost in MOTIVE. The current Administration does not have American interests at heart, theirs is a GLOBAL AGENDA, pursued in the interests of GLOBAL MULTI-NATIONAL INTERESTS. It seems that debate, from both sides, always shares the misguided foundation that their argument arises from a common interest, that being the welfare of our nation. But it is MY belief that the "welfare of our nation" is NOT the foundation upon which current policies are being constructed upon.

Back to my point. If the Cheney abomination and his pet monkey want to maintain or increase troop levels in Iraq, they will simply CREATE the situations or events that justify it, then proceed to villify and demonize any "anti-american" efforts to question the events or the policies.

Sapere Aude --- agree, quite unbelieveable. For u and others who have read the Bamford article, what constructive actions must we take to rid this behavior from our government, wherever it exists?

Might the New America Foundation host a brown bag lunch with Rendon as guest speaker?

What about that Steve?

The earlier post by "sapere_aude" was correct about the Rolling Stone article about John Rendon, aka The Man Who Sold the War. It's a must read for all to see just how the Bush administration and the Pentagon utilized deception to sell the war to all necessary stakeholders.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7

Is it a war or a mind game? You be the judge. I think most of us already know the answer. This article appears to confirm it.

Steve, are you going to Cheney's AEI speech on Monday?

The Lions of Winter

The Republican members of the House of Representatives may have created their own Waterloo yesterday. Forcing a vote on a Resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, with out any formal committee process, evidenced a political stunt and disappointing display of immaturity for a serious matter facing the United States.

They reacted, in my opinion, like frightened kids on the play ground, and not members of Congress with great powers and responsibilities under the war powers act. It was the old lions (Bill Young, John Murtha Curt Weldon) in the House who showed the way to debate and discuss, and left the little ones who can only fight by inflamed rhetoric and scare tactics looking like fools to the whole world. Read the transcript. (www.cspan.org)

Their shallow and partisan attempt to back down Representative Murtha was a shameful display, and all who devised this outrageous behavior should be held accountable at the polls next year.

The Republicans, may well have done what the Democrats have been unable to do, and nationalize the elections for the House and Senate in 2006. Only time will tell, but their behavior deserves our careful attention and rebuke at the polls next November.

Don't forget, during this same day, they voted major cuts in domestic programs, attempted to embarrass a major war hero/ distinguished member of Congress, and VOTED THEMSELVES A PAY RAISE. Quite a day. As the President told Brownie - - Speaker Hasterett (Denny, you're doing a heck of a job).

Here's a video of the McGlaughlin group--summarizes :

General Odom's 9 Reasons to Leave Iraq

Makes sense to me.

I respect the 3 democrats who voted yes. The others who've been calling for a pull out were caught with their pants down.

As for Murtha, where exactly would that OTH force of Marines go? Saudi? NO, they don't want troops there because of their own al Qaeda problems. Not enough room in Qatar, UAE and Bahrain. Obviously not Isreal, and Turkey is probably a no go also.

So the "quick reaction" force would end up in either Germany, or here in the states. That would be some quick reaction.

Crazy, go read Murtha's resolution. You obviously are confusing the silly Republican resolution that almost no one supports with the nuanced and constructive resolution put forth by Mr Murtha. Murtha was trying to get a serious discussion of a serious issue. The Republican leadership put on a clown show. We have a failure brewing in Iraq and a President that refuses to listen to well intended advice. By politicizing the Iraq War and Iraq policy, the Republicans are failing our troops.

"If the Cheney abomination and his pet monkey want to maintain or increase troop levels in Iraq, they will simply CREATE the situations or events that justify it, then proceed to villify and demonize any "anti-american" efforts to question the events or the policies."

But they can't create the troops to fight that scenario. Disaster would (and will) ensue.

The weakness in any stay the course rhetoric is that it is all rhetoric and no substance. The Iraq war is being "run" by the same people who "ran" the response to Hurricane Katrina, and when the inevitable, obvious, but constantly denied disaster strikes, it will be the Hurricane Katrina episode of US military history. Kind of like the Bataan death march only bigger.

TO: Pissed off American

I agree. The Administration does not develop policy based on events. But I do think they develop policy based on elections--not Iraq elections---their elections. Their own elections appears to be pretty much the only thing they care about.

Capitalism Poses A Direct and Immediate Danger to All Life on Earth!
The Runaway Greenhouse Effect Has Already Begun!

Prior to the analysis of Social Security and other issues and in order to put the threat to Social Security in context as part of the economic war directed by the capitalist dictatorship against the masses, it is imperative that we briefly document an even greater threat. The Runaway Greenhouse Effect has already begun. This is no joke and is not something which might occur in the distant future. It is no longer simply Global Warming that we have to contend with but the beginning of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect. Professional climatologists risk losing their jobs if they reveal the rapidly approaching reality. The vast majority of them must lie to keep their jobs! Nevertheless, according to the latest published results in the British Guardian, which were just blipped in the media, for the last 3 years the CO2 level for the first time has begun to rise in an accelerated fashion indicating that a Runaway Greenhouse Effect has already begun. Ethical and Honest (bucking the trend!) scientists, at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory reported that average CO2 levels increased by 2.08 ppm in 2002, to 373.1 ppm, and by 2.54 ppm in 2003, to an average of 375.64 ppm. This is the first recorded example of the average CO2 level jumping more than 2 ppm in two consecutive years. See: British Guardian, Oct 11, 2004. It became three consecutive years in 2005 when the Associated Press reported on March 20th that scientists at Mauna Loa Observatory had recorded the atmospheric CO2 level peaked at a record of 379 ppm! The apparent significance of this newly observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is that the CO2 reservoirs, namely the rain forests and oceans, are now exhausted and from this point on the atmospheric CO2 level will start to increase in an exponential fashion.

U.S.-led world capitalism-imperialism is controlled by the oil industry and the military industrial complex and cannot reform itself. Real reform would include: 1.) Beginning to introduce alternative energy sources like Tidal Power and certain large hydroelectric sources such as the world’s largest waterfalls and on a large scale to the degree where fossil fuels no longer supply the majority of the power for residential and business needs and the world’s dependency on fossil fuels actually ends and 2.) Ending completely the deforestation and destruction of the rainforests which trap much of the Earth’s CO2 in vegetation and planting new forests. China, a Workers’ State, based on human need not private profit, has led the world and reversed Asia’s net loss of 3000 square miles a year of forests from the 1990’2 to a net gain of 4000 square miles since 2000. But the capitalists can do nothing to reverse the situation. This is because of the internal dynamic of capitalism, which is independent of the wills of the individual capitalists and politicians which make it up. They are powerless. The system controls the capitalists; the capitalists do not control the system. Capitalism generates the scum and the scoundrels such as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, the Clintons, Bloomberg, Ferrer, etc. Capitalism cannot be reformed through elections or in any other way. In fact today the word “reform” is simply a nebulous sounding codeword, like Gorbachev’s “Perestroika,” generally used by the capitalists with the understood meaning an attack on the working class, middle-income earners and the poor. So-called “Social Security Reform” is just one example. It is absolutely vital that we establish a new economic-political-social system based on human need not private profit. That system is Socialism and it cannot be “elected” under capitalism. That can only come about through Socialist Revolution. Today the main topic of conversation among progressive people must be the technical means of achieving a Socialist Revolution in the United States. See below.

Capitalism Cannot Reverse Fossil Fuels Global Warming nor
The Runaway Greenhouse Effect Which Has Now Begun!

The most important potential alternative power is tidal power from the oceans and hydroelectric power from huge waterfalls such as the Kaiture Falls in Guyana with a total drop of 822 feet (5 times the drop of Niagara Falls) and Victoria Falls in Africa. The Niagara Falls Region is the largest producer of hydro-electric power in the world. Half of the flow of the St. Lawrence River is diverted by Canada and the U.S. for hydroelectric power, to complaints from those who might prefer to see nuclear power plants (!) or no plants at all—the reactionary anti-technology movement. While there has been some hydroelectric power development of Victoria Falls by Zambia the oil industry has suppressed hydroelectric power development of Kaieture Falls. Instead of development of such alternative sources of energy the capitalists are calling for more fossil fuel development and pushing nuclear power once again which permanently pollutes the environment. The so-called “environmental groups” such as the Greens and Greenpeace, etc., which are part of the group of government-controlled fake “opposition” single-issue groups are also suppressing this information. Nevertheless, a few tidal power plants already exist in England, France, the former USSR and China. More must be built rapidly in all countries in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres which have tides. The Kaiture Falls alone has been estimated to be able to produce enough energy to supply all industrial and residential needs of North America and South America combined! And Victoria Falls in Africa is the largest waterfalls in the world! Both are completely ignored by the capitalists because of the threat to the oil industry. The Runaway Greenhouse Effect has already occurred on Venus where all the CO2 is found in the 932 degree Fahrenheit (500 degrees Centigrade) atmosphere. The water in the oceans of Venus all evaporated because of the heat generated by 30% more sunlight Venus receives than on Earth. Once in the upper atmosphere ultraviolet radiation broke the H20 apart into hydrogen, which disappeared into space and oxygen which reacted with minerals on the surface and disappeared from the atmosphere. But Venus, which lost all the water from its oceans, which were nearly the size of the oceans on Earth, and where life did not evolve with the consequence that there was no plant life, was unable to absorb the gradual build-up of CO2 from volcanos, which eventually formed the thick CO2 atmosphere which exists on Venus. On Earth the source of the CO2 is obviously the fossil fuels. Without a Socialist Revolution here in the United States that is the future of the Earth.

Runaway Greenhouse Effect means just what it says! Feedbacks have already begun to kick in which constantly accelerate it. For example, because the Polar Ice Cap has virtually all melted there is a lot less white ice which used to reflect the sun’s rays back into space.The ocean water which has taken the place of the polar ice is much darker and absorbs much more heat from the sun, according to recent front page reports in the New York Times. French TV News recently reported scientists’ observation that the droughts, which have occurred during the summer months for the last several years have substantially decreased the amount of vegetation in France and Europe. Vegetation binds CO2 and removes it from the atmosphere. But the capitalists simply lie about the extent of the disaster or deny it and pretend to go through the motions of dealing with it, because capitalism simply cannot deal with it. Articles are written expressly to disavow the truth and to keep the masses confused. For example, an article in the New York Times, Nov 2, 2005 entitled: “Climate Study Warns of Warming and Losses of Arctic Tundra,” cites an article in the co-called “The Journal of Climate.” The authors, from the Carnegie Institution and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the leading center for the development of the crazed First-Strike Star Wars weapons systems under Reagan, and now Bush, hide the actual atmospheric CO2 levels and present a deliberately false admittedly “simulated study” where “the CO2 level rises about 0.45 % a year through 2300,” then the authors falsely acknowledge (!?) that value is “slightly less than the current rate, about 0.5 % (!).” Which is another Big Lie! As if the above-reported values in the British Guardian, which documents that for the last 3 years the CO2 in the atmospheric has no longer been increasing additively but is now beginning to increase exponentially, simply do not exist! The article concludes with the deliberately disingenuous Earth shaking observation: “The question is no longer whether we will need to address this problem, but when we will have to address the problem.” (Gosh, do you think so, really?) This fraudulent (cover-up) “finding” supports the policy of the capitalists’ regime to do nothing, and once again represents the destructive driving force of the dynamic of the capitalist system itself.

The recent hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita and Wilma are just the beginning. The situation will arise in the not too distant future where the southern coast of the United States becomes basically uninhabitable. One quarter of U.S. imports and exports pass through the Gulf States and one quarter of oil refining has also taken place in the Gulf States, to say nothing of the drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The capitalists’ response to the renewed focus on “Global Warming” after these hurricanes has been front page articles in the New York Times which point to the loss of ice cover in the Arctic and Greenland and bizarrely shout: “Hurray, the silver lining of the Global Warming is that it makes it possible to begin drilling for oil full scale in the Arctic!” Isn’t that great? In addition, the capitalists have used these recent hurricane disasters as the pretext to cut social programs and escalate the economic war against their own domestic population on the fraudulent slogan of “shared sacrifice!” The capitalists’ objective as described below in more detail is to reduce the world’s population overall by bringing people to an earlier death by any means necessary. This Fascist policy, known as Social Darwinism, is being implemented worldwide as the capitalists’ answer to what they consider the population explosion, and includes primarily economic warfare and biological warfare.

AIDS, SARS and H5N1 Avian Flu are all U.S. Bio-Warfare
Weapons being used for Population Reduction!

U.S.-led world Capitalism-Imperialism is fundamentally based on war and mass murder to steal new resources and new markets. The U.S. government is controlled and run by the military industrial complex and the oil industry and naturally approaches all problems from this perspective. AIDS is documented to be Bio-warfare by the U.S. government, and other cooperating governments, directed primarily against People of Color, Gays and those with blood clotting disorders deemed to be genetic liabilities for the human species. (See 1986 AIDS Poster and 1987 AIDS newspaper and other documentation published by the United Front Against Racism and Capitalism-Imperialism.) The AIDS virus is actually the Icelandic Sheep virus, known as the Visna-Maedi Lentivirus, which has been adapted to the human T4 helper lymphocyte through standard cell culture techniques. The AIDS virus should never be referred to as “HIV” because AIDS is not a human virus! AIDS is a Bioweapon designed by the United States government with assistance from the French during the 1970’s. From its origin in sheep and goats it was then passed through bovine species before finally adapting it to humans in the 1970’s. This is documented by comparing the genomes of the 3 viruses. Lentiviruses are found only in ungulates (hoofed animals) and are found in no primate species normally in nature, which can easily be confirmed by books on viral taxonomy published before 1980, after which they were all rewritten by the Bio-Warfare criminals. The number one Bio-Warfare criminal of the United States, Anthony Fauci, has even been installed as the Editor of Harrison’s Textbook of Internal Medicine(!), the multi-authored bible of Internal Medicine, in order to censor anything which might conflict with the U.S. Government’s concocted Big Lies about AIDS and assorted garden variety lies involving diagnosis and treatment in many other areas of medicine. The U.S. government has prevented development of an AIDS vaccine because it permits work to be carried out on vaccines which use the AIDS envelope lipoprotein and refuse any funding of an AIDS vaccine which utilizes the viral RNA itself, under the pretext that the vaccine might infect people. This is despite the fact that deleting the SOR gene makes it impossible for the virus to replicate and would permit use of all of the AIDS RNA in the vaccine minus the SOR gene. This would make an extremely effective vaccine but BioWarfare Criminal Anthony Fauci, et al. does not permit that to occur. SARS is also a Bio-warfare agent but the capitalists stopped with SARS because the Peoples’ Republic of China, one of the capitalists’ main targets, demonstrated that it could be completely neutralized through quarantine.

China’s announcement in the New York Times, November 16, 2005, that it will begin vaccinating all 5.2 billion, chicken, ducks, geese and turkeys against the H5N1 Bird Flu may seriously complicate the United States plans to release their human-to-human H5N1 reassortment virus in China (See below!), where the U.S. has been frustrated in its previous attempt with its SARS Bioweapon to reduce China’s population! If Chinese poultry is all vaccinated there will be no credibility whatsoever to any U.S. claim the H5N1 Bird Flu has “jumped species in China” if then a human-to-human strain suddenly “breaks out” of nowhere! There would be no sick birds for the human-to-human strain to have “jumped species” from. Many people will smell a rat! Not a bird! Not only that—if China demonstrates that it can vaccinate 5.2 billion birds it is obvious that they can easily vaccinate all of their 1.4 billion citizens with the vaccine they are now developing for a human-to-human strain! And it would also be in China’s interest to offer both their bird and human vaccines and their manufacturing technology to neighboring countries or any other country which requested it once their own population was vaccinated or even simultaneously while vaccinating their own birds and citizens.

According to the above New York Times report in 2004 there were 50 outbreaks of H5N1 Bird Flu in birds in 16 Chinese provinces, with 11 more outbreaks peaking this autumn, concentrated in and around Liaoning Province. The unusual cluster of cases in birds in Liaoning Province the Chinese have attributed to “fake flu vaccine which (was contaminated) with active virus.” It sounds very much like the batches of bird flu vaccine used at that location were indeed deliberately contaminated by our old friends from Fort Detrick and Co., who have penetrated the so-called World Health Organization for decades and would be able to accomplish this with no problem! After all the WHO and NGOs were also evidently instrumental in initiating the AIDS epidemic in the Chinese countryside which was later blamed on poor farmers selling their blood to make ends meet, which certainly may have occurred. But the AIDS virus didn’t just come from nowhere! According to the Times report the Chinese vaccine is normally nearly 100% effective in birds, so deliberate sabotage sounds most likely. The Americans have the only motive. Why? Up until the 2 to possible 3 human cases of Bird Flu just reported in the