Liz Cheney on the WaPo Editorial Page

The Spawn of Satan™ was given a spot on the editorial page of the Washington Post today, and boy does she never fail to disappoint! She chugs the Kool-Aid and churns out a propaganda piece that would make Brezhnev blush. And I can only assume it was aimed at the 28% that comprises the Armageddons-a-comin' crowd because I have read more cogent arguments from 12-year-olds. The kindest descriptives I can muster are vapid, insipid, trite and vacuous. Proof once more that a world-class education can be, and indeed often is, wasted on it's beneficiaries.

Let's parse her *points* and rip her to shreds, shall we?

Let's start with the real reason she wrote this. Reasons, actually. First, it was a generic drive-by smear against Hillary Clinton, who came back from a trip to Iraq speaking out about the ab-surge-ity that Bush is advocating; election be damned.

But the main reason is more below the surface - it's written at a the level of a 12-year old because it's the talking points for the dead-enders - and that is about their level of comprehension. If they were not uneducable, they wouldn't be continuing to ingest the spoon-fed poison dished up by this administration.

We are at war. America faces an existential threat. Really? I thought the military was at war, and America was at the mall. As to the existential threat she wants us all to set our hair on fire about - Bullshit. Any *existential threat* our nation faces is due to undermining the Constitution, suspending Habeas Corpus, the Insurrection Acts of 1807 and Posse Comitatus. The threat to America is from her president and her father and the fools who follow them. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not an entity, and fighting this tactic militarily is just, well, stupid.

Quitting helps the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. Don't worry, you miserable bitch, I wouldn't take your word that the sky is blue. if you said it, I would go outside and look up. Zarqawi is dead, so scratch him off the list-o-threats. Let's all remember, as well, that al Qa'eda is a Sunni organization, and Iraq is majority Shi'ite. That civil war in Iraq? It's between Sunni and Shia. Anyone who believes that the Shia would stand for an al Qa'eda takeover of their country should contact me immediately, because I have millions sitting in a bank in Nigeria that I need your help and $50,000 dollars to retrieve...

Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat. Anyone catch that whiff of desperation? A Republican snatches at the straw of Republican corruption, claiming that was more to blame for the electoral disaster the Republicans were handed than the war. Anyone remember the post-election analysis and exit polling? It was about the war!!! Here is the defining race that crystallized that point: The Kansas 02, home to Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley, tossed Jim Ryun out on his ass and installed Democrat Nancy Boyda. Listen up, bitch. We took a poll in November - the only poll that matters - and the results weren't what you wanted, so you tell us to "beware the polls." Oh for fucks sake. Grow up and deal. The jig is up and you guys have been repudiated. As for that "fighting them there, rather than here" bullshit...Did you ever play sports? I did. Still do in fact. Homefield advantage is not to be underestimated. We fought them here at home just fine prior to the cock-up that is Iraq and the travesty that is the Bush presidency. We caught the first WTC attackers without a Patriot Act, without suspending Habeas and without launching an illegal war. Of course, we used to have a President, not some fucking idiot who dismissed the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing with an "Okay, you've covered your ass now." And then cleared brush rather than attempting to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. Personally, I would rather be the one who can fade into the populace, rather than a sitting duck.

Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe Allies are bailing right and left because of the incompetence and fecklessness of her Daddy's war-mongering. The War on Terror™ and the war in Iraq are two separate and distinct entities, and conflating them is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Read a fucking newspaper. Ahmadinejad is a figurehead, and a fading one at that. The only reason he was ever allowed to be ensconsed was to stick a thumb in Bush's eye after that Axis of Evil crap. Iranians dished up a thumpin' for him along the lines of the one Bushbaby took.

Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. Fine. Here is a comment left on the 75th page of overwhelmingly negative comment to your piece on the WaPo website in response to your blathering, and I will let this soldier have the last word:

Since you decided to invoke soldiers and what we think, I will tell you: Liz Cheney, you're an idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about. I could go on and on about every point you make here, but in particular Ill address your comments about the courage those of us who have actually been to war unlike you, your father, the president, etc.. Of course terrorists cant beat us militarily, but guess what. They're beating us. Why? Its not a military victory were looking for. Its a PR fight. Its hearts and minds. If you had ever been there, or knew anyone closely who had, you'd know its a counterinsugency, and I can only assume from your column that you know nothing about counterinsurgency. Its easy to talk tough when you have no personal stake in the fight at all. You have evidenced a complete misunderstanding of this conflict, and all of us in uniform would be better served if you either educated yourself on the issue, or you just shut up. This administration has left those of us fighting this war out in the cold at every opportunity, from resources in the field to VA funding to brain injury research. How dare you try to use our collective voice to support a policy and an administration that don't support us.Jan 23, 2007 3:08:34 PM

Twenty-One Americans Died in Iraq on Saturday

The Pentagon announced that a Marine was killed in fighting in Anbar province, and five American soldiers were killed in a firefight in Karbala. Two more were killed in roadside bombing incidents in Ninevah and North Baghdad on Saturday.

It was also announced that a U.S. Helicopter went down in Diyala province carrying 13 passengers and crew members and all perished. The announcement was not accompanied by the usual disclaimer that the craft was not shot down, leading most to speculate that it came under fire and was lost to hostility, rather than error or malfunction.

Get used to double-digit death statistics as the escalation gets underway and Americans engage in hostilities with the native population more frequently. Personally, I stashed a couple of Valium for the day we lose an entire Unit. I dread it, but I see it coming, as sure as aWol is a feckless loser who has never done one right thing in his entire miserable, wasted life.

[Updated at 8:30 p.m. on 20 January 2007 to reflect latest information.]

[Update: We were lied to by our government in an eerie shades-of-Vietnam way. Four of the five soldiers who were supposedly killed in Karbala defending their position were in fact kidnapped and executed, their bodies found 25 miles away. The attackers passed themselves off as Americans to get into position to storm the government meeting. This indicates they had insider information passed to them. Now American soldiers have to wonder if the Americans coming toward them are indeed Americans.]

And it's on...

The gloves came off today. Nancy Pelosi came right out and said publicly that Bush is in such a hurry to insert more troops into Iraq because he knows that Congress won't cut off funding for troops already in the field.

The White House fired back, calling the Speaker's remarks "poisonous" and denying the political nature of Bush's escalation, insisting the president is ordering the troops in because he thinks it's right, not for political reasons.

Bush "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder." Pelosi said at the National Press Club earlier today. Her salvo came as former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, said the escalation would be counterproductive, delaying the pace of training Iraqi security personnel, and delaying the exit of American forces from Iraq. "You delay the date of completion of the training mission. You delay the date of handing responsibility to the Iraqis. You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops" from the region, Hamilton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the buildup.

Meantime, Republican Senators were getting together and parsing the wording of the non-binding resolution and making slight edits to the text that would allow them to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats when it comes up in the Senate next week.

As for me, I'm ready for the Democrats to start fighting. Hubert Humphry Democrats didn't restore the majority. Harry Truman Democrats, however, are experiencing a resurgence. And not a moment too soon!

Vet group Protests Escalation on Capitol Hill

Two days after a group of active duty troops presented the Appeal for Redress on the Capitol steps, another group of veterans (not affiliated with the active duty group) of the war in Iraq made the rounds on Capitol Hill to drum up support for a pushback against the president and his proposed escalation of troops in the Iraqi theater of operations.

The group’s leader implored lawmakers to listen to people who have been in the fight and “not those draft-dodgers down the road,” an apparent reference to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Nine veterans, all affiliated with the increasingly partisan VoteVets.org, made the rounds of the Senate to drum up support for some legislative action that would prevent an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq. It was Jon Stolz, an Army Reserve captain who served in Iraq in 2003, who made the jab at Bush and Cheney. Bush served in the National Guard during the Vietnam War but did not deploy, while Cheney received multiple draft deferments and never served.

Stolz, national chairman of VoteVets.org, has been involved in forming a new umbrella group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, that involves veterans, anti-war groups, MoveOn.org Political Action and other groups. Two of the veterans making the visit ran for Congress in 2006 but lost their election bids.

[SNIP]

Stolz said the veterans include Democrats, Republicans and independents who all agree that sending more troops to Iraq is a mistake.

“We are here to meet with senators on both sides of the aisle,” he said. “We are here to tell them why this is, frankly, ridiculous.”

Indiana Army National Guard veteran Sam Schultz, another of the veterans, called the Bush plan “delusional,” while Army Spec. Robert Loria, who lost his hand in Iraq in 2004, said he also disagreed with the plan.

“How many more men and women have to lose a limb or a life?” Loria asked.

“This is a policy that has nothing supporting a solution,” said Army veteran Jeremy Broussard, a field artillery officer who deployed in 2003 to Iraq.

In a sign that they are being taken seriously, they appeared at a press conference, flanked by Senators Patty Murray of Washington and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and they had meetings with Senators from both sides of the aisle, including my Senator, Claire McCaskill, and presidential hopefuls Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Sam Brownback.

Paul Krugman: The Texas Strategy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 15, 2007
The New York Times

Hundreds of news articles and opinion pieces have described President Bush’s decision to escalate the Iraq war as a “Hail Mary pass.”

But that’s the wrong metaphor.

Mr. Bush isn’t Roger Staubach, trying to pull out a win for the Dallas Cowboys. He’s Charles Keating, using other people’s money to keep Lincoln Savings going long after it should have been shut down — and squandering the life savings of thousands of investors, not to mention billions in taxpayer dollars, along the way.

The parallel is actually quite exact. During the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, people like Mr. Keating kept failed banks going by faking financial success. Mr. Bush has kept a failed war going by faking military success.

The “surge” is just another stalling tactic, designed to buy more time.

Keep Reading

Bush on 60 Minutes

Great Gatsby's Ghost, that was a disturbing display. This man obviously has no grounding in reality at all. In spite of everything; the opinion of the Generals who have been in charge up to now, the American people, the Congress, those serving in uniform... he is moving forward. It is a fine line indeed that separates determined from pathological. I watched the interview (if you missed it, it's in the link) and was just stunned by the lack of appreciation for what he's done.

Asked if he thinks he owes the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job, Bush says, "Well I don’t, that we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?"

"Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion?" Pelley clarifies.

"Not at all. I think I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq," Bush replies.

Yes, those ungrateful Iraqis, don't appreciate all he's done for them. Sucking the civil out of the cradle of civilization was a direct result of the American invasion, but the Iraqi's should be grateful.

Are we into fitness to serve territory yet, and if not, what the hell else will it take? Willful disregard for the will of the American people is a fitness to serve issue.

He chooses to forge on, ignoring the congress, the citizenry, the Generals on the ground, the troops in uniform. He chooses to ignore his Daddy's men who were sent to bail him out. He ignores all but a few dead enders at the American Enterprise Institute who lust for wars they are not obliged to fight. Then he whines that people like me were picking his plan apart before he had even announced it.

Well, yeah. Of course I did. The day the AEI posted their latest stay-the-course, more-of-the-same-plus-20% scheme, I steeled myself and downloaded it and gave it a read. That report told me what the president would say, and that gave me a head start. (Me and everyone else on both sides of the issue with half a functioning cortex and Acrobat Reader.)

It's time for us - you and me - to stand up and make this madness stop. We had an election, and the results were a mandate on the war. A mandate the president has chosen to ignore in favor of getting a bunch more Americans and Iraqi's killed as he stays the course toward hell, with his vanity war.

On Tuesday, January 27th there will be a rally in Washington against the war and the escalation. If you can attend the rally on the mall, do so. If you can't attend the rally in Washington, find a local one. If you can't attend a rally, make it a point to, on that day, send emails to your congressional representative and your senators and express your support for withdrawing from Iraq.

Brits Drawing Down in Iraq?

George Bush stubbornly forges on with his wacky scheme to stabilize a country of 26 million who all want us gone with an additional 21,500 troops; refusing to acknowledge the opposition in congress, the opposition by the American people, the dissension in the ranks or to even the fact that he was rebuked in an election a mere two months ago.

It's a shell-game really. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the quietest months have been the first 1/2 Friedman Unit, so when they say "We'll know in a couple of months whether it's working." you know damned good and well they are looking at those stats and playing the timing angle, trying to capitalize on anything they can grasp onto.

But it gets better than mere mendacity on the part of the Bush administration. While we are escalating, the Brits are ginning up to draw down.

If Bush goes ahead with a troop buildup in Iraq, with some of those troops culled from the fight in Afghanistan, here is what I I fear happening:

• The Harper Government falls in Canada and the next government will withdraw from the NATO effort in Afghanistan.
• The British start withdrawing from Iraq, leaving the United States to pretty much go it alone in major combat operations.
• The number of Americans killed in battle will rise to 150-200 per month. I hope it doesn't go higher.
• Within 30 days of escalated conflict, a unit will get cut off in Sadr City and be lost. It will be the Blackhawk Down moment we have been fearing.

That's just some of what I see coming out of the Dionysian little moron's grand scheme for escalation of hostilities. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but I am pessimistic. Nothing these jackals have suggested thus far has worked. I see no sense to trust them again. In fact, I would prefer to see the lot of them in a dock at The Hague, standing trial for war crimes.

Surging the wrong direction

Somehow, the Republicans managed to paint the Democrats as wanting to surrender the "War on Terror" because we see the folly of continued involvement of American forces in Iraq.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is time to set the record straight.

The war in Iraq and the War on Terror are far from the same thing. In fact, I would argue that their respective circles barely overlap. Iraq is a sectarian civil war and American forces are caught in the crossfire. The front in the War on Terror is located on the other side of Iran, in Afghanistan.

They keep asking for a Democratic plan. Fine. This Democrat has one. The first thing we do is get our diplomats together with Iranian diplomats and we agree to stop meddling around on their borders if they will stop meddling in Iraq. (And make Juan Cole one of the Diplomats we send.) Acknowledge that the location of American combat forces on two of her borders has something to do with Iran's sudden interest in developing nuclear weapons. Especially when it is established fact that a lot of American commando activity has been going on in Iran below the CNN line. I understand their motivation because I can read a map.

The next thing we do is start pulling brigades back to Kuwait and let them rest up and have some leave. Reduce forces in Iraq by 10,000 a month, and when they are rested, add them to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, where 21,500 additional troops would make a real difference.

I accept that Iraq is a disaster no matter what, and can't be won militarily. It is an apostacy that 3000 Americans have died in an unnecessary war. But I am not willing to lose Afghanistan too.

But that is what is certain to happen if we continue focusing on Iran, and if we lose Afghanistan, then literally, the terrorists win. (That might be the only time those words have been used properly.)

As it stands, all signs point to a Taliban re-emergence in Afghanistan in the spring, and that comes in February in the south.

It is time for us to put Afghanistan at the forefront. I support the justified and justifiable war, but I can't support the vanity war George W. Bush is intent on pursuing to the bitter end in Iraq. It is time we all take a hard look at reality, and not just the parts we want to see, and start making some hard choices. And it is time we started framing the issues.

cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose

Heckuva Job, George

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort

--by Wesley Clark
Published: 07 January 2007
The Independent

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

The Resurection of the Neocons

Someone fetch me a wooden stake and a mallet. The time is nigh to kill the Neocon movement once and for all. They have been totally, 100% wrong in absolutely everything they have engaged in up to this point so why in hell would anyone consider acting on their advice ever again? I'm still working out a just and fitting punishment for the singularly craven adherents of that particular nihilistic political philosophy.

It's the remnants of the Neocon movement (like Bill Kristol) firmly ensconced at think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who are behind the call for a troop buildup and escalation of hostilities. That, in and of itself, is sufficient grounds to reject the notion as feckless folly.

And since I brought up the AEI, lets have some new rules for just who exactly gets to call themselves a think tank, whaddya say? For instance, if you have been irrefutably wrong in every policy position you have advocated, you don't get to call yourself a think tank. Likewise, if you advocated a preemptive war and scornfully disregarded warnings that a civil war would be the end result, you don't get to call yourself a think tank.

Personally, I can't get over the chutzpah. The good ship Neocon proved less seaworthy than the SS Minnow and Gilligan looked like Admiral Nelson in contrast to the abilities of the neocons to write and enact policy.

Bug Hunt

Is this gonna be a stand-up fight, Sir, or is this gonna be another bug hunt? ---Pvt. Hudson, Aliens

What the president misled the country into isn't a stand-up fight. It's a bug-hunt.

A year ago the president was promising that by the end of 2006 troops would be withdrawing from Iraq. The mission, such as it has never actually been defined except as ...to win, that's the mission, was supposed to evolve to focus on high-level specific strike operations against high level terrorist targets.

A year later the meme seems to be "Well gee, we had a splendid plan, but those Iraqi's just cocked it all up by insisting on having a civil war!" Guess what, neocons? We tried to tell you that when you toppled the dictator the artificial construct that was Iraq would implode and a power vacuum would suck the civil out of the cradle of civilization.

Pardon me if I don't get on board and feel sorry for the president because his shiny "plan" got broken and didn't work. He had plenty of people making accurate predictions and he chose to ignore those of us who have been proven to be right.

Hell, he's still insisting Saddam was a threat, for crying out loud!

Now the president wants a troop buildup and an escalation of hostilities.

He wants to send an additional 25,000 troops to Iraq, bringing troop levels back to about 165,000. When we say we are sending 25,000 troops, that means that there will be approximately 8,000 more ground pounders and the rest support personnel.

It's too little too late. How will this make a difference when we knew going in that it would take 400,000 to hold the country and it would probably still have devolved to something resembling chaos?

The U.S. troops are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war. The only thing the warring factions have in common? They all hate the Americans. The people killing Americans are elusive. They have the home-field advantage and they can set an IED or fire a shot from a sniper nest, and immediately fade into the population, unnoticed.

The violence against Americans is ratcheting upward. December was the bloodiest month of the bloodiest year and it only looks to get worse.

I am so sick of people spinning the casualties as not so bad because other conflicts have been worse. The nature of warfare has changed and this conflict has very little in common with conflicts of the past. For starters, this conflict is staged from bases and the troops are not sleeping in foxholes. This is a largely urban guerrilla war and the comparisons they offer have not been. The troops have body armor that saves a lot of lives that would have been lost otherwise - just like antibiotics did in World War II. The number of troops engaged in theater are a lot less than they were in those other conflicts too, by the way - Vietnam had over a half million American troops in-country at the height of hostilities.

In other words, when someone plays down the numbers, they are actually engaging in a little bit of intellectual dishonesty by setting up what is known as a false equivalency.

It's like when they say that more military personnel died on Clinton's watch - they take all numbers of troop demise under the Clinton administration - natural causes, accidents, off-base bar-fights, and they make a bar-graph. Then they do the same with the Iraq war and say "See? That awful Clinton killed more troops than Bush!" It is, of course, bullshit. If you put those same numbers with the war casualties, the Bush graph would tower over the Clinton graph, but that wouldn't serve their purposes.

If anyone thinks the Republicans have been chastened i have a bridge to sell you. They will keep engaging in the soft duplicity of false equivalencies, and it is up to us to expose them for what they are.

BIDEN OPPOSES TROOP BUILDUP

"Mr. President, this is your war." --Sen. Joseph Biden

Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee has stated unequivocally that he opposes any escallation or troop buildups that would insert 20-30,000 additional troops into Baghdad.

This places him firmly at odds with fellow 2008 presidential hopeful, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was one of the first to call for an escallation of troop numbers to try to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad. The country would appear to be on Senator Biden's side, given that only 11% of Americans favor such a buildup.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.

If the violence continues two years from now, "every one of those Republican senators — and there's 21 of them up for re- election — knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom," Biden said.

Senator Biden has already informed Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that she appear before his committee to answer questions about the President's "new and improved" Iraq war plan as soon as it is announced next month. The Secretary has agreed.

I am glad to see Biden taking this stand, vowing to take on this fight, but then I am always glad to see Democrats show signs of spinal fortification.

What we had on November 7 was not just an election - it was an intervention. And like so many addicts, the president charmed his way out the door with words of contrition, and ten minutes later he was back on the streets, trying to score more and more powerful drugs.

Americans Overwhelmingly Reject the Idea of a Troop Buildup

As the year winds down the talk of a troop buildup escalates, and Senators and presidential candidates are jockeying for position. There's a new sheriff in town, and he jetted off to Baghdad and was on the ground within 48 hours of being sworn in.

I almost let myself feel hopeful for a second, and then I remembered I knew him when. Gates, the original fixer, did not disappoint me. He wasted no time, but got straight to carrying water for the administration and getting the Generals singing from the administrations hymnbook. That trip to Baghdad wasn't to assess the situation and move forward and if you believe it was, go look in the mirror because I will wager your upper lip is grape Kool-Aid purple. This administration is just totally fucking rotten with naked banal perfidy. I'm counting down the days and hoping for some sort of intervention in the interim, because I don't want to see what damage the idiot prince can wreck in another two years.

Does anyone else flash on Anthony, the little boy in It's a Good Life (the creepiest episode of The Twilight Zone ever) when George Bush gets petulant? (You do now. Sorry for the nightmares.)

Well, Gates is back from Baghdad, and his first week was...interesting. The Generals have done an about-face and now think more troops is a good idea. The president wants additional troops, although we aren't sure which 20,000 he has in mind - Does he mean 20,000 total, which would put about 7000-8000 pairs of boots on the ground? Or does it mean 20,000 ground-pounders and 30-40,000 support personnel for a troop buildup of 50-60,000? They aren't saying. But if it's the former, they aren't going to be very effective, and if it's the latter it will place a strain on the armed services that could potentially have significant long-range consequences for our military capabilities and readiness.

Every officer holds a special position of moral trust and responsibility. No officer will ever violate that trust or avoid his responsibility for any of his actions regardless of the personal cost. An officer is first and foremost a leader of men. He must lead his men by example and personal actions. Troops must be led; and an officer must therefore set the standard for personal bravery and leadership. All officers are responsible for the actions of all their brother officers. The dishonorable acts of one officer diminishes the corps; the actions of the officer must always be above reproach.

They were honor-bound to stick to their guns - so to speak. The Generals sold their souls, and they abandoned their troops. There is no honor among them. They are craven, and they are feckless. In my heart I have torn the stars from their epaulets and cast them into the mud. They do this, while a thousand of the troops they are supposed to lead, many of them officers, have signed an Appeal for Redress, and many more are engaging in protected communications with their represetatives in congress? They do this when they were sent into an unwinnable war based on phonied intelligence? They dishonor the men and women who served under them and made the ultimate sacrifice by playing politics with war. They punked their troops. No, I turn my face away from them. They are a shameful, pitiful disgrace to the uniforms they tarnish every time they don the cloth.

I know, pretty strong words. But that is exactly how I feel. It took thirty years to build the all volunteer military; then they let George play with it, and now it's broken. And when the Generals had a chance to stand firm, they crumbled like sugar cookies. Abizaid is retiring, but he is going along too. Perhaps not enthusiastically, but he isn't making any statements of principle, either.

The General's really blew it. They had a golden opportunity to not only lead, but boost enlistments and applications to OCS in evey branch, and elevate the character of the military leadership in the public mind; and then they didn't stand up like men. Imagine...Three flag-ranks - who were junior officers during the Viet nam war, so they know what it feels like to get punked by the top brass - stand up to the Fixer and threaten to resign if this wacky scheme is given any traction at all. Imagine the popular support they would have had! A whopping 11% of American support a troop buildup. But instead, the feckless Generals went along with the feckless president; and now they are all doomed to join Westmoreland in the Hall of Shame.

Operation Together Forward: II

Who believes this is all coincidence...first the announcement is made that the size of the armed services needs to be beefed up permanently. A couple of days later, they start talking of a "surge" of troops to stabilize Baghdad. The Generals initially resisted; but now, suddenly have capitulated. Then the Friday News Dump...The test of the Selective Service.

No way this is all coincidence and I can't believe even the distracted and appathetic American public isn't raising hell about this. Let the draft notices start landing in mailboxes in Overland Park and Leawood and we will hear a chorus of outrage, and no one will be raising hell with Kelly Feigenbaum any more, calling her selfish for not offering up her son to be saccrificed in Iraq.

When they talk about a surge, they are talking about escalation. Call it what it is. It's a troop buildup and the result will be an escalation of hostilities. The result will be ramped up death and destruction. The result will be bloody fucking chaos and we can not stand by and let this happen.

I am hearing people on the left say that we should let them have their "surge" and when it fails the Republicans will be done for decades.

What utterly crass and craven perfidy.

No one, and I do mean no one, who has ever put on the uniform or loved someone who did can stomach the thought that anyone would view the life of a single troop as expendable in the interest of some future election.

Bush's troop-buildup is not a done deal. The new congress will be seated before the call-up can go out, and they can enact some oversight and accountability. If you oppose the actions that are brewing, contact the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Senator Levin can be reached by clicking here, and Congressman Skelton can be reached by clicking here.

Not to repeat myself, but for years Americans have said they were mad as hell and not gonna take it any more. Once more I ask...Do you mean it yet?