Civil War In Full Force
At least 121 dead in Baghdad market suicide bombing.
Eeech.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Friday, February 2, 2007
NIE Tells A Story
From the little details that have come out of the Iraq NIE, one thing is clear. Whatever good happens in Iraq, it will have to come from within, not from a foreign power trying to accelerate change.
In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.
The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.
Completion of the estimate, which projects events in Iraq over the next 18 months, comes amid intensifying debate and skepticism on Capitol Hill about the administration's war policy. In a series of contentious hearings over the past two weeks, legislators have sharply questioned Bush's new plan for the deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. troops and the administration's dependence on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Other Bloggers: Capitol Hill Blue
Technorati Tags: Republicans•Congress•NIE•Iraq
Friday, January 12, 2007
The Failed Plan
Because of school (those bitches blasted me with work on the first day), I wasn’t able to live blog the Iraq speech, or really even post anything about it until now. I did watch the speech, and obviously, as most people know, the escalation plan is nothing new, nothing different, and nothing that will solve any problem in Iraq. If anything, this escalation plan is a plan to escalate into other countries.
Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines most of the problems in a column in today’s WaPo.
· The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.
This is the weirdest thing about Bush’s plan. No matter what anyone says, this plan doesn’t really do anything. It’s simply a pretend plan… and I can’t figure out what the point of it even is. MSNBC (which had the.best. post speech coverage) brought up the point that that number needs to be cut in quarters, as troops need to sleep, and that that is the true number of extra troops on the ground at all other time. Simply, I will pass 5275 people on the road today as I travel to work.
We’ll see how this evolves, but let me be the first (well, really, like the 1000000000th person) to call this policy a simple failure.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Iraq•Surge•Escalation
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
In Opening: Escalation
Today’s WaPo outlines Bush’s obvious change in policy when it comes to listening to the commanders in Iraq.
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.
Bush has no choice but to ignore the people who know what they are talking about, because, quite frankly, Bush is only left with three choices, and two of them just aren’t in his, like, creepy makeup to accept.
First, Bush could do absolutely nothing. He could continue on, continuing on, while we are handedly defeated in Iraq. This is obviously a horrible idea, and one that even Bush wouldn’t think about continuing.
Second, Bush could pull out of Iraq and leave the Iraq civil war up to Iraqi citizens to take care of. This is the most sensible, but an idea that Bush is unable to accept. I fully believe that Bush is unable to pick this choice, to leave Iraq, because if he does, it’s a sign that his presidency was a complete failure. Bush will, and is, putting the lives of our men and women in jeopardy simply to take a chance at saving his legacy.
The third choice, and the one that Bush is choosing, is to attempt to send more troops into Iraq, in an effort to draw this war out long enough that it won’t be his problem any longer. It’s frightening to think that this is what’s happening, but I don’t see any other reason why Bush is, contrary to every single voice in this country (the few that say send many more troops and the overwhelming amount that are saying get out), deciding to go down this path.
Without pressure from Democrats, this war will be pushed off for two more years, until a new President is in place to make the call that should be made now.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Iraq•Surge•Escalation
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
In Closing: Escalation
Most Americans are soundbiters, people who do not dig deep into politics and news, but instead listen and read simple soundbites, soundbites that can be printed or aired without any concern to facts. It’s not that Americans are stupid, it’s just that busy lives keep people from prowling the 24 hour news stations, blogs, and online news sources (not that I do… really….).
Tomorrow, when Bush announces his escalation plan (which I‘ll be live blogging *ahem*), very few Americans will really fully understand what is going on, as the soundbites that come out of it will most likely not tell the whole story. It’s important to look for many things in this plan, and frame them in a way that the facts will allow.
• Will Bush’s plan actually contain anything new, other than more troops? There will be padding to make the escalation seem more sweet, but will any of it actually matter? Will Bush just simply promise to try harder and set goals where no action will be taken if they are not met? Or, will Bush set clear benchmarks that must be met, complete with penalties in case these benchmarks can’t be fulfilled?
• Will Bush explain why he isn’t listening to the American people, most of Congress, or the soldiers and leadership in Iraq? Will he explain why he knows more than all of these people, and who exactly it is that he’s taking tips from?
• Will Bush undertake diplomatic policy, like the ISG report suggested?
• Will Bush explain how more troops will solve another country’s civil war?
Can Bush adapt to a roll where he is no longer solely in charge of this country? A roll where he is at odds with the American people?
It should be interesting.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Iraq•Surge•Escalation
Troops Out By November? Yeah, Right
Bush’s escalation plan is set to begin right away, according to news reports.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is prepared to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq in an effort to pacify Baghdad, with the goal of handing control of the country to Iraqi troops by November, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
Most of the additional troops will be deployed in Baghdad, where American and Iraqi troops fought a 10-hour street battle with insurgents on Tuesday.
But about 4,000 would be dispatched to the restive Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, the senior official said.
The first troops in the new wave could be a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division that is already in Kuwait.
The official cautioned that the November date for Iraq control does not mean U.S. troops would withdraw by then.
The newest thing to come out here, is the idea that Iraqis will take control by November. Is this one of those, “that’s our goal, which doesn’t really mean anything, because it’s not like we’re going to actually do anything if that goal isn’t reached”, things? My guess would be, yes.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Iraq•Surge•Escalation
McCain And The Nutters- BFF
Jesus Christ, you must be fuckin’ kidding me.
John McCain guest blogs over at strange, Arab obsessed Powerline, trying to drum up some escalation points from the far-far-far-far-far-far-far-farthest of the far-far-far right.
Read it, and then ask yourself why McCain is trying to gain support from the nutter minority in politics, while ignoring the important, sane, anti-Iraq majority in America.
It’s almost like they only care about one group of people….
John McCain guest blogs over at strange, Arab obsessed Powerline, trying to drum up some escalation points from the far-far-far-far-far-far-far-farthest of the far-far-far right.
Read it, and then ask yourself why McCain is trying to gain support from the nutter minority in politics, while ignoring the important, sane, anti-Iraq majority in America.
It’s almost like they only care about one group of people….
Technorati Tags: McCain•Iraq•Surge•Escalation•Nutters
Why?
Sally Quinn takes a step back and actually focuses on the American soldiers in today’s WaPo.
It’s nice that someone actually takes the time to think about these young men and women. As many times as the Right uses our troops to further their liberal bashing agenda (you know, the soldiers snub Kerry, lie) , they never seem to actually want what is good for the troops.We have three choices here. All three are immoral. We can keep the status quo and gradually pull out; we can surge; or we can pull out now. When I think about those young soldiers on that plane coming back from Japan years ago, I believe pulling out now is the least immoral choice.
This is one of the truest things I’ve seen written. No matter what some would have you believe, we will eventually pull our troops out. This surge is not going to solve the civil war in Iraq, and Bush seems to not have the ability to do the things that will actually calm the violence. So, what we are left with is a simple escalation plan that will kill and injure more of our men and women, before the inevitable withdrawal.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves is why.
Why are we going to send more of our people to die?
Why can’t we just skip the deadly step and get to the inevitable point of withdrawal?
Why are the people who use “support our troops” as a political platform the least likely to truly support our troops?
Why?
Technorati Tags: Soldiers•Surge•Iraq•Escalation
Sunday, January 7, 2007
NYT: The Bush Escalation Plan
The Times has published more details about Bush’s new Iraq plan - WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — President Bush’s new Iraq policy will establish a series of goals that the Iraqi government will be expected to meet to try to ease sectarian tensions and stabilize the country politically and economically, senior administration officials said Sunday.
Among these “benchmarks” are steps that would draw more Sunnis into the political process, finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue and ease the government’s policy toward former Baath Party members, the officials said.
The article goes into further detail (basically the entire plan).
This entire thing feels like window dressing, meaningless things that are simply put there to take some attention away from the escalation. Does Bush actually believe any of this stuff will have any impact in Iraq? Is there anything there that is even new?
This is the same exact thing we have now, simply with more troops involved. Like, seriously, Bush is simply saying, hey, we’ll work a little harder… while we send more troops in because, basically, we still don’t get it yet.
Gag.
If this is the entire plan, please, Democrats, don’t be little bitches.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Surge•Iraq•Escalation
Pelosi VS. Escalation
The biggest (only) thing to come out of the Sunday Talk Shows would have to be Pelosi clearly stating that there would be no funding for an escalation, if Bush cannot justify it. (h/t Think Progress).
Visit Taylor Marsh’s site to view the whole video.
If the Democrats hold to this, we may finally see the first bit of oversight Bush has ever really faced. If you think Bush is a lame ducky, now, just wait until he has to try and explain his insanity to people that ultimately control the funding of said insanity.
Is it too nerdy to admit that this is, like, totally freakin’ exciting?
Other Bloggers: Tennessee Guerilla Women•Progressive Movement
Technorati Tags: Pelosi•Face The Nation•Iraq•Escalation
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Bush - Finally Sucking Across Party Lines
Are we actually seeing the start of a Congress Vs. Bush steal cage match, with Democrats and Republicans banning together?
It kinda seems that way.
WASHINGTON - President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq is running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even has a chance to make his case.
Next week Bush will unveil a new Iraq strategy that entails political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone.
Technorati Tags: Congress•Bush•Escalation•Democrats•Republicans•Iraq•Surge
Friday, January 5, 2007
BREAKING- Dems' Letter To Bush
The entire letter can be found over at HuffPo.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. "
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Finally.
I was worried the Dems wouldn’t take such a hard line, but it seems they have listened to the American people, the Iraq forces, and, like sanity, and issued a strong statement.
Let the games begin.
Technorati Tags: Congress•Pelosi•Escalation•Democrats•Dean•Iraq•Surge
Thursday, January 4, 2007
In The Army Now!
(Updated below...Updated Again)
Watch out liberal newswires, here comes the Malkin, to, like, let truth prevail.
I spoke with Jordan by phone before Christmas to learn more details of his offer, which I'm not going to get into for privacy and security reasons. (He asked that his discussion be off the record.) I let him know that I had received invitations to embed with the military and planned to follow up on some of these offers concurrently with the investigation of the AP's reporting. Since our conversation, things have moved at a fast pace on the embed side. Over the holidays, my Hot Air colleague Bryan Preston and I received word that our embed applications had been approved. We have been busy preparing our families and ourselves for the journey. Our overarching goals are two-fold:
1) to report on how the troops perceive mainstream media coverage of the war (with a particular focus on the wire services relying on local stringers); and
2) to report on progress and interaction between U.S. troops and Iraqi Army trainees.
The "Jamil Hussein" story is one important item on our agenda, but not the only one. As Curt and other bloggers on this story have noted from the beginning, Jamilgate isn't just about "Jamil Hussein." Bryan and I plan to do as much on-the-ground reporting as we can to nail down unresolved questions--not only about Jamil Hussein and the Hurriya six burning Sunnis allegations, but also about the AP four burning mosque story discrepancies and the many other AP sources that our military has publicly challenged--including "Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq" and more than a dozen police officers listed by U.S. military spokesman Navy Lt. Michael Dean. There's also the issue of detained AP photographer Bilal Hussein. And we are looking forward to reporting first-hand on the security situation in Iraq outside the so-called "Green Zone" (International Zone) and talking to as many American and Iraqi Army troops with insights on these and other broader matters.
Please, Malkin, enlighten us with your fair and unbiased reporting.
UPDATE1: 12:11 PM
Jamil Hussein has won the first Battle of Fakraq as he stuns the Malkin Brigade by announcing his existence!
UPDATE2: 9:11 PM
Oooopsie, it looks like Jamil Hussein is really, really real.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
But still, Malkin will be on the scene to convince us that Iraq is really a happy place with prancing bunnies and, like, sand creatures that frolic in the dunes. You know, nothing like the war zone that the liberal media would have us believe it is.
Other Bloggers: Firedog Lake
Technorati Tags: Michelle Malkin•Iraq•Jamil Hussein
Friday, December 29, 2006
The Death Of Saddam and The Creepy Right
(Updated Below)
Let me start off this post with the obligatory “Saddam was an evil, evil man who did evil, evil things”, so the nutters don’t accuse me of an evil lovefest, or whatever other strange ad hom attacks they can think of to label the left, instead of actually debating their ideas. With that said, it seems quite set in stone that Saddam will be hung by tomorrow, giving the Bush administration what could, perhaps, be their final shining moment in regards to the Iraq war.
Watching Fox news (hey, I take that bullet so you don’t have too) and the Conservative blogosphere (that one too) cover this with such glee is quite creepy. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be Champaign (and pill) popping in many Conservative camps, once this execution has taken place. The fact that a group of people are so happy, so incredibly giddy, about the death of another human being, cannot be described as anything but a sign of insanity. To get a hardon over the destruction of another human life is intrinsically evil.
UPDATE1 1:16 AM
And it's done.
With all the effort, all the lives lost, all the money spent in the fight to get to this exact moment (well this exact moment a few hours ago… yeah, yeah, I’m behind), shouldn’t I feel more… something? I can honestly say it wasn’t worth all the pain and suffering of our soldiers, all the deaths, all the past and future destruction as this war drags on until Bush is no longer president.
Technorati Tags: Iraq•Saddam•Nutters
LIEberman and Reality: No Longer BFF
Ripped From MuseworldIn case anyone was wondering, Joe LIEberman is still at odds with reality.
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
This entire Lieberman OpEd, which is basically LIEberman giving a BJ to the troop escalation camp (is there any doubt now that Bush is going to call for escalation), stinks of some real reality dodging- we even get a 9/11 comparison. Simply, LIEberman sounds like unhinged Bush (circa 2005).
The interesting angle of this is how the American public will receive this OpEd and if they will believe that we are, once again, fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq, instead of being completely stuck in the middle of warring Iraqi groups fighting for power. My guess is that there will be a resounding rejection of this escalation plan, and when this happens, I hope they realize that LIEberman is not a Democrat and that he should not reflect on the party.
Technorati Tags: Iraq•Bush•Troop Escalation•Lieberman•Troop Surge
Other Bloggers: ConnecticutBLOG•Brillian At Breakfast
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Strange Waiting Game
(UPDATED BELOW)
I feel like all this behind-closed-doors “Iraq policy crafting“ is nothing more than political games.
CRAWFORD, Texas - Already weeks in the making, President Bush's new war plan is being burnished with the assistance of top military and diplomatic advisers as critics of the war urge the Democratic Congress to resist any call for a large military buildup in Iraq.
It's unclear whether Bush will signal his desires or just seek further consultation when he meets at his Texas ranch on Thursday with Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the National Security Council.
Downplaying expectations, the White House says it's a "non-decisional" gathering. Yet advisers have set the stage for a presidential speech after the first of the year in which Bush will lay out a new U.S. strategy in Iraq where violence could be sparked by the execution of Saddam Hussein.
We all know that Bush is going to call for more troops, so why all these weird consultations and talks? Bush fully thinks that there is an enemy in Iraq that has to be defeated for the country to become stable. Because of this flawed thinking, he believes that sending more troops will solve the problem by quickly defeating the enemy and bringing peace to the country.
How fucking weird is that?
I think this quote from the article hits it dead on -
Sending more troops only increases the Iraqis' dependence on U.S. forces and allows them to delay making the painful political compromises needed to end the violence, said Larry Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense. He said part of Gates' mission in Iraq was to get military leaders to support an increase in troops.
"You can put a Marine or soldier on every street corner in Baghdad, but unless the reconciliation process begins, it's not going to make any difference," Korb said.
UPDATE1 11:35 AM
The Raw Story has a post up linking McCain’s sagging poll numbers to his support for the “troop surge” idea. It’s an interesting read, but in the end it all works out like this:
If this troop surge idea happens (it will) and if it actually works (it won’t), then Republicans will be hailed as some sort of heroes, which leads to a problem for the Republicans. This idea is completely unpopular, causing very few Republicans to support this troop surge policy, out of fear that it could be political suicide.
All this leads me to believe that we are about to face some interesting political times.
Grab a beer and watch the games begin.
Technorati Tags: Iraq•Bush•Strange Republican Insanity•McCain•Troop Surge
Thursday, December 7, 2006
ISG Report: The Iraqi Feeling
The overall tone of the ISG report is a simple one. America must begin transferring power and responsibility over to the Iraqi government. It seems like such a simple little idea, but published in today’s WaPo is an article detailing the feelings of Iraqis to this report.
Basically, Iraqis feel that the report doesn’t take into account the difficulties that are actually taking place in Iraq. The civil war is so strong that most are unsure that the warring factions will ever be able to agree, leaving the ISG report filled with ideas that can never be achieved. This may be the case, but what is America supposed to do?
Admittedly, this is America’s (the Bush admin’s) mess to clean up, but we can only do so much. If Iraqis refuse to give up their warring ways, there is nothing we can do as the toll on our country would certainly not be worth the risk. As much as it is our mess, unfortunately, it has to be their mess to clean up, for it is impossible for us to do so. We cannot change the minds of people that are engaged in a centuries old battle.
From the WaPo article -
Other Bloggers: The Moderate Voice
Technorati Tags: Bush•War On Terror•Iraq•Iraq Study Group
Basically, Iraqis feel that the report doesn’t take into account the difficulties that are actually taking place in Iraq. The civil war is so strong that most are unsure that the warring factions will ever be able to agree, leaving the ISG report filled with ideas that can never be achieved. This may be the case, but what is America supposed to do?
Admittedly, this is America’s (the Bush admin’s) mess to clean up, but we can only do so much. If Iraqis refuse to give up their warring ways, there is nothing we can do as the toll on our country would certainly not be worth the risk. As much as it is our mess, unfortunately, it has to be their mess to clean up, for it is impossible for us to do so. We cannot change the minds of people that are engaged in a centuries old battle.
From the WaPo article -
"It comes far too close to having the U.S. threaten to take its ball and go home if the Iraqi children do not play the game our way," Anthony Cordesmann, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an e-mailed analysis, referring to possible withdrawal of support.Actually, that is exactly what is happening, as the U.S. needs to threaten Iraq in this way. There seems to be this prevailing thought in Iraq that they cannot bring safety to their own country. Even if this is true, the problem is that Iraq will never be truly safe until their Government is able to fully govern. America cannot govern Iraq into sanity, and quite frankly, we’re sick of trying. If Iraqis want to live in a civil society, then they must take the steps needed to achieve it.
Other Bloggers: The Moderate Voice
Technorati Tags: Bush•War On Terror•Iraq•Iraq Study Group
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Gates Confirmed
Gates has been approved. The final vote: 95-2
Voting No: Santorum and Jim Bunning (some sort of protest or something… probably protesting that Jesus wasn’t made Secretary of Defense, or somethin’ whacky like that).
Technorati Tags: Bush•Senate•War On Terror•Iraq•Gates•Secretary Of Defense
Iraq Study Group Roundup
[Updated Below...Updated Again]
The AP has a nice summary about the Iraq Study Group’s findings and all the hoopla around them..
It recommended the U.S. reduce political, military or economic support for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security.
I was never down with the immediate troop withdrawal idea in the beginning, but I always warned that we needed to find a way to make the Iraqis step up, a way to show them that this is their country now, as well as their responsibility. Apparently no one could find a way to accomplish this, leaving us with only this hardnosed option.
The truth of the matter is that the Iraq government needs to take control, and apparently this is the only way to achieve this. What’s the only eother option? Sit in Iraq for decades while their government works it out? Yeah right.
"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the California Democrat who is in line to become House speaker when the new Congress convenes in January.
Thank you for acting like a real leader, Pelosi. Seriously, score one for our side… or something - you know it works somewhat like that in almost everyone’s head, don’t lie - .
In a slap at the Pentagon, the commission said there is significant underreporting of the actual level of violence in the country. It also faulted the U.S. intelligence effort, saying the government "still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias."(emphasis mine)
Take that Michelle Malkin! You little liberal conspiracy believer, you.
Update1 5:38 PM EST
The Truth Laid Bear has the report in html. Check it out if you want to know more about what is inside.
Update2 9:28 PM EST
The Times has published a piece basically quoting some prominent Democrats on their reaction to the Iraq Study Group’s report.
Basically, it seems that most in the party are going to shy away from an immediate withdrawal proposal, which will anger some, though I have yet to decide if it is a good move.
There’s a part of me that thinks all hope is lost in Iraq, and that no matter what we do, we will lose. Part of me thinks that we should pull all our troops out, because simply, we have no business being there, our citizens have no business dieing there. Then there’s the other part of me that wants to give this new Congress a chance to work with the president and come up with a plan that will allow the Iraqi government to stand on its own. But, if we allow Congress to work with Bush and hammer something out, how long do we wait before we come to the conclusion that it’s time to pull the troops?
Technorati Tags: Bush•Congress•War On Terror•Iraq•Iraq Study Group•Nancy Pelosi
Morning Roundup
Oh look, House members are going to actually have to work for almost a whole week.
Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.The horror.
The best quote comes from some random Republican who doesn’t want to work a full week, because it may hurt his “family”, or something.
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
What a tool. If you are so worried about your marriage and family, then don’t run for office. Your job is to run this country, a job that should be taken seriously. Sorry Repub, but there won’t be any do-nothing Congresses here, even with you trying to paint Democrats as anti-family because they expect you to go out and do your job.
Seriously, you shouldn’t have expected Democrats to run a do-nothing Congress, so I’m not sure about why this guy is so surprised. We aren’t under Republican control anymore, duh!
Other Bloggers: Gun Toting Liberal•Captain’s Quarters
• Bush has been briefed on the Iraq Study Group report. Some interesting info I’ve ran across:
From CNN -
"The country is tired of pure political bickering," Bush said.The report says "the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve into one of supporting the Iraqi Army."
It adds: "It's clear the Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities. Yet the U.S. must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq."
From the AP -
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," the commission warned after an eight-month review of a conflict that has killed more than 2,800 U.S. troops and grown increasingly unpopular at home. The report was obtained by The Associated Press.The report warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."
"Neighboring countries could intervene. ....The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized," commissioners said.
From the NYT -
According to members of the panel, the group concluded that American forces in Iraq should make a major shift in priorities over the next year, withdrawing from combat in favor of beefing up the training of Iraq forces. It also called for stepped-up diplomatic efforts — including talks with Iran and Syria — not only to stabilize Iraq but to revive the peace process between Israel and Palestine, news services reported.According to The Associated Press, the report describes the current situation in Iraq as “grave and dangerous.” And The Washington Post reported that the group recommends that Mr. Bush threaten to withhold economic and military support unless the government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki meets specific milestones for progress on security and political reconciliation.
As word of the likely recommendations leaked out recently, Mr. Bush has moved to distance himself on some points, while emphasizing that his administration is already pursuing others. The president has also requested a review of policy options from the Pentagon, and has made clear that he will regard the Study Group’s report as one input among many.
In particular, Mr. Bush has been adamant that he will not agree to any timetable for withdrawal, and has dismissed the idea of a “graceful exit.” He has also said repeatedly that he will not talk with Iran until the standoff with the United Nations over its nuclear program is resolved.
Basically, Bush has finally been informed that his Iraq policy is fucked, and that he needs to change it quickly, which may include *gasp* working in a bipartisan manner, and through diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors.
Will we see a change that will work? Probably not, as Bush is still the guy in charge, and I highly doubt that he is able to save this mess. His entire way of thinking about this war has just been labeled as “wrong”, yet I doubt Bush is able/willing to change his way of thinking.
Let the games begin….
•
Oh noes!!!1!!1 Lesbos having babies, someone call the Republicans! O wait, it’s those lesbians.
WASHINGTON -- Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, is pregnant, according to a published report.Mary Cheney, 37, and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, 45, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, The Washington Post reported in Wednesday's editions, quoting an unnamed source close to the couple.
Technorati Tags: Bush•Congress•War On Terror•Iraq•Senate•Democrats•Lesbians•Iraq Study Group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)