Thursday, December 21, 2006


logged in, saw this thread, couldn't resist posting this videoas far as more troops, 20,000 troops means absolutely nothing, with shifts, eating, sleeping, it increases the fighting force by about 4000 bodies

in addition, a "surge" is only redirecting existing troops there are no additional troops to support any "surge"

a surge is taking troops from other areas which are already too thin, and it's forcing more tours from soldiers that are there too long already

getting more troops involves recruitment, training, constriction and a three year window

20,000 troops will do nothing and will pressure the other arenas that are sorley under too much presuure already, 40,000 troops is worse for America

we need an actual increase in manpower of at least 200,000 troops to overcome how badly our armed forces have been conducted and continue in Iraq with any prayer of stabalizing this country

you must watch this entire video,...this is scarborough, a republican, was a fierce supporter of Bush in both elections, and a strong supporter of this war, he hit's the nail right on the head...please watch beginning to end

VIDEO from crooks and liars

We have in office a man that makes it up as he goes along, if he has any philosophy he discards all information that discounts his philosophy, he fires anyone that dissagrees with it and he goes on a "listening tour" until he finds someone who agrees with what he wants them to agree with

Tuesday, December 19, 2006


The washingtom post

...The Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.


My post below is a summery of Trex's excellant post over at firedoglake

Most Americans, have no idea why there is a civil war in Iraq. This is because we have no knowledge or learning of the history of this country. Now that is not a criticism, very few people study the history of countries outside their own.

To be as brief as possible, the Sunni's and Shiite simply represent two basic philosophical differences;

The religious leaders of the Shiia have to follow a direct bloodline from Muhammad, the Sunni's follow the direct writing in the Koran and do not believe a blood connection to Muhammad is required for their religious leaders.

The Shia claim an inherited right to leadership and wanted to exclude non family members from the clergy, the Sunni's would have none of that.

This has been the basis for civil war between the two since a few centuries after the profit's death and from that time forward there has been bloody civil war.

Shiite's are the majority in Iraq and a few other countries, Sunni's are the majority in the world

Through the 19th and 20th centuries the two sects lived in relative harmony, when we destabilized Iraq the two sects needed to vie for the religious and therefore political influence they want over the country.

Very simple stuff here and obvious why there is a civil war.

Here's the scary part;

The ambassador to Croatia (Peter Galbraith) tells us Bush was totally unaware that there were two major sects of Islam.

He knew nothing about it and this was as recent as two months before he initiated his unprovoked attack...this is from an interview with the ambassador;

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

The argument the politicains are trying to make that the unrest in Iraq is not a civil war is redlculous, of course it's a civil war, and it's a bloody one

professor Cole in an interview at npr;

JC: The degree of rancor and hatred and sheer brutal violence that's going on in Iraq right now between Sunnis and Shiites is, I mean, I think you have to go back to the 1500's to find another period in which it was this bad.

NPR: So, it sounds like the political aspirations of different powers within the region are exacerbating these theological and cultural differences between people, as is often the case in ethnic violence.

JC: Yeah, I don't think that people in Iraq are ultimately fighting over Sunnism and Shiism very much, now. One prays with their hands at their side. Another prays with their hands folded in front. I don't think that people are killing each other over those kinds of minor differences. They're killing each other because these religious ideologies are being marshalled in a quest for power.

so there's the history of what's going on in Iraq.

Friday, December 15, 2006



WASHINGTON (AP) -- As President Bush weighs new strategies for Iraq, the Army's top general warned Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.

Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years

everyone knows we are already having trrouble meeting the current recruit demnands, and now in order to keep our military from brfeaking under the insane policies of an administration that actually thinks initiating war against countries that pose no threat and house no terrorists is a good idea, we must find a way to reman a military for a commander in cheif the country believes has proven himself inept, irresponsible, and incapable.

If there were a play book written by bin laden, it looks like the man in charge of this country is following that play book to the detriment of our national security

Tuesday, December 05, 2006


we hear about it in a Press release from the ACLU today, they've filed with the "Human Rights First" organization and the courts hear their briefs Friday "to argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody

if this one goes forward with the first judge watch a fast track straight to the supreme court
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First charged today in the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan that has tarnished America's reputation.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight men who were subject to torture and abuse at the hands of U.S. forces under Secretary Rumsfeld's command. The parties are seeking a court order declaring that Secretary Rumsfeld's actions violated the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and international law.

"Secretary Rumsfeld bears direct and ultimate responsibility for this descent into horror by personally authorizing unlawful interrogation techniques and by abdicating his legal duty to stop torture," said Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel in the lawsuit and director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "He gives lip service to being responsible but has not been held accountable for his actions. This lawsuit puts the blame where it belongs, on the Secretary of Defense."

The groups are joined as co-counsel in the lawsuit by Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA), former Chief Judge (IMA) of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals; and Bill Lann Lee, Chair of the Human Rights Practice Group at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. Admiral Hutson and General Cullen are "of counsel" to Human Rights First.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we have vigorously campaigned for an independent commission to investigate U.S. policies that have led to torture and cruel treatment of detainees. These calls have gone unanswered by the administration and Congress, and today many of the illegal policies remain in place," said Michael Posner, Executive Director of Human Rights First. "We believed the United States could correct its policy without resort to the courts. In bringing this action today, we reluctantly conclude that we were wrong."

The men represented in the lawsuit were incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions. None of the men were ever charged with a crime. All have been released.

"One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. military throughout our history has been strong civilian leadership at the top of the chain of command," said Admiral Hutson. "Unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to live up to that tradition. In the end, that imperils our troops and undermines the war effort. It is critical that we return to another military tradition: accountability."

In legal papers, the groups charged Secretary Rumsfeld with violations of the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The lawsuit also seeks compensatory damages for the harms suffered as a result of torture and other abuse.

According to the complaint, Secretary Rumsfeld "authorized an abandonment of our nation's inviolable and deep-rooted prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. military custody." The complaint further charges that brutal and illegal interrogation techniques were personally approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002. Those techniques included the use of "stress positions," 20-hour interrogations, the removal of clothing, the use of dogs, isolation, and sensory deprivation.

full text here

This is MUCH more important then the rights of these individuals.

It is PROVEN the Geneva protocol protects OUR soldiers against torture, our won military IMPLORE the administration to protect our soldiers by FOLLOWING THE LAW.

There is LESS infornation gathered through torure not more, our own intelligence agencies, THE VERY PEOPLE PERFORMING TORUTRE ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHALF tell ius they started getting LESS quality information when they were instructed to use torture in their methodology.

IMMEDIATELY after the president "reddefined" torture to make it look as if he didn't break the law, other countries employed similar tactics to justify their torture as well.

It is MIND BOGGLING anyone who calls themself an American wants to argue in favor of torture, yet the neo cons do

In Iraq, we were SUPPOSED to be "winning the hearts and minds" of this nation,,,this was the message, that we would have friends and kindred spirits in the middle east and such a state would stabalize the region and the world

It's IMPOSSIBLE to "win the hearts and minds" of ANY country you occupy when you condone UNDERMINES the goal and makes your objective impossilbe to achieve,

You create MORE vile against America, MORE terrorists, MORE terrorism, MORE insurgents, MORE insurgency.

Worse then all of that;

The geneva protocols are portions of a treaty America is a signator.

The ability to broker treaties and appear as honest brokers is VITAL to our national security.

Once we demonstrate a treaty means nothing to us, no other treaty will ever be regarded as substantial by any other country.

The president is NOT allowed to unilaterally void a treaty America is signator, he violates the integrity of previous administrations, he violates Amercian law...not can he redefine paragraphs or tenets of that treaty, and he CANNOT add caveats that broaden the scope of acceptable behavior.

He is NOT "the decider" of the treaty, he's not " the definer" of the treaty, those abilities are left to the supreme court and the other signators of the treaty.


Every single American needs to watch this case and argue on the side of our law, no administration is above our law, that would make him king, no official is above our law at behest of any administration.

If Rumsfeld broke no law then he has nothing to fear at trial and I don't want to see ANYONE argue that this case should not go forward.

Monday, December 04, 2006


well, not just me, Joe stopped by firedoglake and was gracuous enough to feild our questions concerning the issues that might arise when we try to leave Iraq.

Quite a man, he tried to answer everyone's question and spent a couple of hours with us..Jane does an nice synopsis before the questions begin, make sure you read what she has to say before you go to the comments

the comments are INCREDIBLE, everyone was very nicely informed and Joe was quite a gentleman staying with us as long as possible;
[Amb. Joe Wilson joins us for discussion in the comments. As always, with guests at FDL, please be polite and stay on topic for the course of the discussion herein. Please join me in giving Amb. Wilson a big FDL welcome. — CHS]

Amb. Joseph Wilson has graciously agreed to join in on a discussion here today regarding the mess that is Iraq, diplomacy, regional difficulties, the potential for American soliders having to fight their way out if and when we finally do leave Iraq and a whole host of other issues surrounding the chaotic failure in which the Bush Administration has mired us. (My words, not Joe's — I'll let him characterize this on his own in the comments.)

From Amb. Wilson's Book The Politics of Truth, we find his long record of service to this nation as a diplomat:

1976-1978: General Services Officer, Niamey, Niger
1978-1979: Administrative Office, Lomé, Togo
1979-1981: Administrative Officer, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C.
1981-1982: Administrative Officer, Pretoria, South Africa
1982-1985: Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Bujumbura, Burundi
1985-1986: Congressional Fellow, offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley
1986-1988: DCM, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
1988-1991: DCM, Baghdad, Iraq
1992-1995: Ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe
1995-1997: Political Adviser to Commander in Chief U.S. Armed Forces, Europe EUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany
1997-1998: Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council, Washington, D.C. (p. 451)

While Amb. Wilson was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq, he was put to the test by none other than Saddam himself:

As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991.
He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.

He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.

He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

It is this background that Amb. Wilson brings to the table for today's discussion — a long history of serving this nation in the field as a diplomat in the center of any number of ethnic, regional and substantial conflicts across the continent of Africa and within Iraq itself, and as an advisor to both military and Presidential national security considerations and to Congressional offices charged with providing sorely needed oversight.

With that in mind, let's look back at some historical context provided by Steve Gilliard in a post last night regarding US retreat from combat operations in the past — and what lessons we should take from those retreats for the current situation in Iraq. As Steve concludes:

One of the things Americans have to get over is their belief in American superiority. An American army can be decimated in a retreat, even by an enemy without airpower. The problem for the US Army in any retreat from Iraq will be the thousands of Iraqis who will want to flee with them and the thousands of POG's (people other than grunts), who will be in that convoy. They might not do so well when they're attacked.

Looking at the roads of Iraq, there are only a few routes south, and they can be blocked and fought over. Which makes leaving in a fighting retreat difficult.

Which makes whatever considerations are being given to such an exit all the more critical — this cannot be done without careful and adequate planning for the worst case scenarios, something that the Bush Administration so clearly failed at doing in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq for the extended period of occupation in which we have been mired the past three years and counting.

On NPR this morning, there was a surprisingly candid and insightful interview with Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future and a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. During the course of the interview, he says:

"We are not able to control events that keep escalating," Nasr tells Steve Inskeep. "We might be able to control the tempo of it, but we cannot easily stop it at this juncture."

A civil war isn't necessary, Nasr says, "but it is necessary to finalize the distribution of power in Iraq. And without a viable political road map, one that the various factions are willing to sit down and negotiate around, increasingly it's evident that the fate of the country is going to be decided by gunmen on the street, and that's what we're increasingly seeing…."

What would happen if the U.S. stepped out of the way?

"There would be a big battle for power in Baghdad and also there would be a big battle between the Shiites and Sunnis and ultimately between the Sunnis and the Kurds over who gets what and where does each stand once the dust settles," Nasr says.

It would be a "much more severe conflict — which then we can actually call a civil war — over who gets Baghdad, who gets Kirkuk, who gets Mosul, and where… the ultimate lines between these constituent parts of Iraq will lay."

While this is a single perspective on this mess, the thing that reverberated for me in this interview was that there has been — and continues to be — no political roadmap. It is simply a "git er done" fiat from the Bush Administration to a nation that was cobbled together by colonial powers back in the heyday of imperialism, and an expectation that they will somehow be able to figure out for themselves, after years and years of conflict and oppression, how to be "democratic" while staring down the barrel of yet another gun. It is madness, and it is a set-up for failure from the start. And the Bush Administration ought to have known this, and planned for contingency interventions along the way — but their failed approach to some sort of "hands off style of diplomacy" has not allowed them to do so. And we are all reaping the costs of it as a result.

With headlines like the recent one in the LATimes "Mideast Allies Near A State Of Panic" and in Australia's The Age "Mideast Too Complex For America," and even a late-planted stiletto from Bob Novak in today's WaPo entitled "Bush's Shrinking Options," it is no secret that expectations for the Bush Administration's handling of this mess are abysmally low.

But that leaves our military personnel, our diplomatic staff and the countless aid workers and infrastructure builders in an untenable position. And these folks all deserve far better from all of us than that.

With the ISG's report put off until likely some time in January, we felt that it was high time some serious discussion took place publicly about the potential for increasing chaos, the problems inherent in the current situtation and in any of the possible solutions that have been discussed thus far in the public arena. And Amb. Joseph Wilson joins us today in the comments to do just that. I look forward to some good debate, some in-depth questions and a lot of frank discussion.

Please join me in welcoming Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

UPDATE: As reader Hugh points out, the ISG site now lists Dec. 6th, 2006 as the release date for the report.

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry is filed under BushCo., Iraq, Foreign policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Spotlight
No Trackbacks to “No Easy Calls On Iraq“
You may leave a trackback from your own site.

please visit firedog lake for the incredible interview that followed

the following quotes were posted by the incredible intellects over at

When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation’s resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

Sun Tzu, the art of war

how prescient is THAT?

it comes from the oldest military treatice on the entire planet

add to that some contemporaries if you don't mind;
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Speech at Madison Square Garden”

let's do one more if you don't mind

“I feel that if our constitutional system ever fails, it will be because people got scared
and turned hysterical and someone in power will demagogue them right into a police state of some kind. That’s what I’ve always worried about. And still do.”

Harry S Truman


how bizzare

what kind of morons are in this administration?...what kind of 'resignation" is it when the man is literaly thrown out of his position for being as inept in his job as anyone can imagine and he claims he's "resigning"
WASHINGTON -- Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

so, bolton "resigns" immediately afther the officisals elected to office tell him he's fired

Saturday, December 02, 2006


what a friggin moron

so, it only takes this idiot about 9 months to realize what Murtha told him was many dead in that time? many?

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

hey genius!!!!;s not working at all idiot, what the frig does "not well enough or fast enough" mean?



“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”

“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. Mr. Rumsfeld’s memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics

this is a failure, there is nothing else to call it, "going minimalistic" doesn't change the FACT that YOU have brought ruin to this country

Instead, the memo puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals that appear to conflict with recent public pronouncements from commanders in Iraq emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels.

now, apologize to Murtha for calling HIM cut and run, apologize to America for not heeding the advice of people who (unlike yourself) have a military clue, and start getting on board IN PUBLIC with the repair of this nation that must take place for the sake of our children and our grandchildren