Peace. Now.
Like many of you, I couldn't bear to watch. That the cretin in chief can command all the television networks to tune in his latest dangerous drivel is something I very much resent. There was on CSpan II a rebroadcast of hearings held by Senator Biden on the situation in Iraq, and I was glad to have that to watch. It was a sound and serious review, using good information. Because it was using real world facts, the conclusions were predictably negative. It is this kind of real view that has led to the American public's rejection of the war, the buildup, and the GOP with the moron at the helm.
Today's CNN poll (early results);
What is your overall reaction to President Bush's revised Iraq plan?
Positive 23% 4669 votes
Negative 77% 16046 votes
Total: 20715 votes
Oh, what a surprise. The wingnuts will of course be saying we're giving comfort to the enemy and are threats to the security of the U.S. - which makes the majority of the American public members of the left wing, I suppose.
There are lots of demonstrations being held this week, and I am glad for all of you who can get to them. This is my demonstration. All of our little leftwinger hearts are with you, those out there making our opposition to this insane war part of the public scene. The C-i-C can command the television networks "Look At Me", but so can you. And in your case, it shows sound reasoning and real facts as background.
Last night the PBS report on the contretemps here given by John Burns of the NYTimes focused on the opposition of Al-Maliki to the imposition of more U.S. presence on Baghdad, and his wanting to be the presiding figure instead of the Americans in charge. This is the opposite of what the C-i-C is representing as the Prime Minister's stance. Asked which he believed, commentator Mark Shields replied simply, that the reporter was more likely to be right. As we all know, being right is not common with this White House, getting its way has required twisting facts to suit its stance. "Staying the Course" was wrong, the facts had to be twisted to make it reasonable.
In a rebuttal speech Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., criticized the president's call for additional troops in Iraq saying Iraqis alone must be left to lead their nation.
"The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers... Escalation of this war is not the direction the American people called for in the last election," he said.
Durbin called for the "orderly" redeployment of troops. "Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq," he said.
Some military analysts who watched the president's speech agreed with Durbin's assessment.
"Twenty, twenty-one thousand troops is not that substantial," retired U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor told the NewsHour. "If you're going to be talking about a surge, you really have to talk about larger numbers."
Trainor said the president's plan seemed similar to current military strategy in Iraq and that placing more control in the hands of Iraqi forces is unrealistic given their current ineffectiveness.
In addition to increased troop levels, the president's plan included a promise from Iraq's government to take a firmer hand in its own security and reconstruction.
The government has promised to take over security control of its nine provinces by November, to hold provincial elections in 2007 and to share the country's oil revenues among all Iraqis.
Iraqi leaders also have made a $10 billion commitment to reconstruction projects, President Bush said.
The president said the Iraqi government would lose U.S. support if it does not follow through on its promises.
The best description of the plan's chances for success are that it is a risky gamble, and arguments maintain that withdrawal would be a disaster.
Mr. Bush is betting that a boost in U.S. troops and aid can accelerate that process. If he is wrong, a continued American presence in Iraq may become untenable. The president must do more to persuade the country that the sacrifice he is asking of American soldiers is necessary. And if Iraqis do not deliver on their own commitments in the coming weeks, he must reconsider his strategy -- and suspend the U.S. reinforcements.
The disaster is here and now. The disaster is that this country has taken on the role of arbiter of the world's behavior. It isn't working. The U.S. had many strengths and authority going into the war and that has been ripped to shreds. The withdrawal from Iraq we desperately need will only begin to repair our position in the world.
It is time to show respect to the American public and the families who have the greatest stake in this war because family members are at risk there. Our interest is not being served by what Holden Caulfield has (as he pointed out to me yesterday at Eschaton) been calling this Chimpy's Vanity War for several years.
The greatest tragedy would be to send in another 20,000 soldiers and that tragedy should be prevented. Now. The blood that's been shed for this travesty should be respected, by ending the madness.
Today's CNN poll (early results);
What is your overall reaction to President Bush's revised Iraq plan?
Positive 23% 4669 votes
Negative 77% 16046 votes
Total: 20715 votes
Oh, what a surprise. The wingnuts will of course be saying we're giving comfort to the enemy and are threats to the security of the U.S. - which makes the majority of the American public members of the left wing, I suppose.
There are lots of demonstrations being held this week, and I am glad for all of you who can get to them. This is my demonstration. All of our little leftwinger hearts are with you, those out there making our opposition to this insane war part of the public scene. The C-i-C can command the television networks "Look At Me", but so can you. And in your case, it shows sound reasoning and real facts as background.
Last night the PBS report on the contretemps here given by John Burns of the NYTimes focused on the opposition of Al-Maliki to the imposition of more U.S. presence on Baghdad, and his wanting to be the presiding figure instead of the Americans in charge. This is the opposite of what the C-i-C is representing as the Prime Minister's stance. Asked which he believed, commentator Mark Shields replied simply, that the reporter was more likely to be right. As we all know, being right is not common with this White House, getting its way has required twisting facts to suit its stance. "Staying the Course" was wrong, the facts had to be twisted to make it reasonable.
In a rebuttal speech Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., criticized the president's call for additional troops in Iraq saying Iraqis alone must be left to lead their nation.
"The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers... Escalation of this war is not the direction the American people called for in the last election," he said.
Durbin called for the "orderly" redeployment of troops. "Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq," he said.
Some military analysts who watched the president's speech agreed with Durbin's assessment.
"Twenty, twenty-one thousand troops is not that substantial," retired U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor told the NewsHour. "If you're going to be talking about a surge, you really have to talk about larger numbers."
Trainor said the president's plan seemed similar to current military strategy in Iraq and that placing more control in the hands of Iraqi forces is unrealistic given their current ineffectiveness.
In addition to increased troop levels, the president's plan included a promise from Iraq's government to take a firmer hand in its own security and reconstruction.
The government has promised to take over security control of its nine provinces by November, to hold provincial elections in 2007 and to share the country's oil revenues among all Iraqis.
Iraqi leaders also have made a $10 billion commitment to reconstruction projects, President Bush said.
The president said the Iraqi government would lose U.S. support if it does not follow through on its promises.
The best description of the plan's chances for success are that it is a risky gamble, and arguments maintain that withdrawal would be a disaster.
Mr. Bush is betting that a boost in U.S. troops and aid can accelerate that process. If he is wrong, a continued American presence in Iraq may become untenable. The president must do more to persuade the country that the sacrifice he is asking of American soldiers is necessary. And if Iraqis do not deliver on their own commitments in the coming weeks, he must reconsider his strategy -- and suspend the U.S. reinforcements.
The disaster is here and now. The disaster is that this country has taken on the role of arbiter of the world's behavior. It isn't working. The U.S. had many strengths and authority going into the war and that has been ripped to shreds. The withdrawal from Iraq we desperately need will only begin to repair our position in the world.
It is time to show respect to the American public and the families who have the greatest stake in this war because family members are at risk there. Our interest is not being served by what Holden Caulfield has (as he pointed out to me yesterday at Eschaton) been calling this Chimpy's Vanity War for several years.
The greatest tragedy would be to send in another 20,000 soldiers and that tragedy should be prevented. Now. The blood that's been shed for this travesty should be respected, by ending the madness.
Labels: Cut and Run, Foreign Policy, Iraq
posted by Ruth at 1:39 AM
1 Comments:
Good web....
rx pharmacy
buy viagra
Post a Comment
<< Home