Bush's Plan C: Iraq Is America's West Bank

Endless Occupation!

Endless this occupation!

William Kristol on George Bush

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Neo-Conservative Scorned

All of my readers know William Kristol as the editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Kristol used to be one of the Kool-Aid flavors most favored by Neo-Conservatives. On June 5th last, he wrote this about the misleader of the free world:

I feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said,

Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now.

So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?

Breaking up is so hard for Neo-Cons to do. Paul Wolfowitz is having the same problem with Shaha Ali Riza.

Bye-Bye Mr. Tony Bliar!

We won't have Lord Poodle to kick around anymore?

Only two of the three musketeers remain out of the original grand 'Coalition' which invaded Iraq.




















Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair is to become special envoy of the Quartet (US, Russia, UN, EU) for Arab-Israeli peace-making. This is Bush's work, but is it intended as a joke or insult?

Blair cannot be even-handed in Palestine, because his hands are too bloody. He has been an enthusiastic cheerleader and collaborator to Bush's Iraq-Nam. He has robotically repeated NeoCon lies and mistaken assumptions which have caused immense suffering and waste in the entire region, and has badly expanded the cycle of terror and brutal counter-violence in the name of fighting terror. He has been a champion of misdiagnosis of the problem of terrorism. His subservience to the United States in Iraq and Palestine-Israel has been a shameless and humiliating example of obsequious spinelessness. He was also a conspicuous opponent to a 'premature' cease-fire in Israel's attack on Lebanon last summer.

Blair's appointment is a popular one in Israel, where he is considered a "true friend". However, the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana is said to be opposed to the move, because it would detract from his own efforts in the Middle East. Reaction from the Arab press has so far eluded me. Perhaps Robert Fisk anticipates the Arab reaction:

That this ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe that he has a role in the region . . . . Not once--ever--has he apologized. Not once has he said he was sorry for what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes--in what must be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake evidence of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"--that he can do good in the Middle East. . . . For here is a man who is totally discredited in the region--a politician who has signally failed in everything he ever tried to do in the Middle East--now believing that he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch up "Palestine".

So is Blair ditching complicity in one occupation and hitching himself up to another?

No. It's much beside the point. Bush has pushed Blair into this position. Because, to Bush, loyalty is the supreme political value and needs to be rewarded. Like Wolfowitz before him, Blair needs an international imprimatur and diplomatic immunity from persecution and prosecution. Bush, left behind, senses that's what every ex-war criminal seeks.

Senator Richard Lugar's Statement

Has this generation's J. William Fulbright finally stood up?

J. William Fulbright was an eclectic and free-thinking southern Democrat. He was a staunch segregationist at the same time he was a multilateralist. He supported the creation of the United Nations, opposed the House Un-American Activities Committee and was an outspoken critic of the organized pro-Israel lobby in the US. He is also remembered for his efforts to establish an international exchange program, which thereafter bore his name, the Fulbright Fellowships. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he opposed Lyndon Johnson's intervention in the Vietnamese civil war from 1966-1974. As a member of the president's own party, his breaking ranks with LBJ over the Vietnam War was one of the decisive factors in Johnson's retiring as a discouraged wartime president after his first term of office.

Yesterday, the current ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, became a potentially equally portentious dissenting member of the president's own party, when he addressed the Senate:

I rise today to offer observations on the continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq. In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world. The prospects that the current “surge” strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

. . . . three factors – the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process -- are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame.

. . . . it is very doubtful that the leaders of Iraqi factions are capable of implementing a political settlement in the short run. I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.

. . . . The second factor working against our ability to engineer a stable government in Iraq is the fatigue of our military. The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength or our ability to respond to other national security priorities is closing. . . . . American armed forces are incredibly resilient, but Iraq is taking a toll on recruitment and readiness.

. . . . The President and some of his advisors may be tempted to pursue the surge strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for U.S. national security.

. . . . In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve.

. . . . Our security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East.

. . . . Our struggles in Iraq have placed U.S. foreign policy on a defensive footing and drawn resources from other national security endeavors, including Afghanistan.

Senator Lugar also said that America owes the President "constructive engagement".

We do not. We have given that in full. It is Bush, by lying and misleading America into this historically unprecedented cluster-blunder in Iraq, who owes America his apology and resignation.

Full text of Lugar speech

When The Real President Steps Down in 2009

What will he say?
George told me to do it!

Dick did it without telling me!

POSTSCRIPT: I have a couple of disclaimers to register about the appropriateness of the art at the head of this column.

1. Before getting on the water this morning, I just had to dash off something on the subject of Cheney's now fully- and self-disclosed function and location: he (thinks he) has established himself as a separate branch of American government, unique in its being totally unaccountable to anyone. It was important to do so in order to mark this juncture in our nation's swirling downward cycle toward unconstitutional autocracy. This has been much commented upon in the blogosphere, as well it should be. I just had to get on the record at this point in this current Weimarian swerve in our American republic's history.


2. Despite the implication in the graphic, I have never subscribed to the theory that Bush is stupid. Far from it: he is only stupid 'like a fox'. I think of Bush, instead, as the head of a cult: a cult of feigned stupidity, a modern know-nothing. But he is ingenious. Together with Cheney, he has contrived to get people to vote against their own schools, against their own medicine, against their own science, against their own class and national interests; against their own planet. Talk about suiciders! Bush at bottom represents the high priest of self-destructive, kool-aid swilling, mass suicides. He has met and surpassed James Jones' ability in getting the masses sacrifice for him. Iraq-Nam is simply the most protracted and most profligate sacrifice running. He has the nation pointlessly squandering even more blood and treasure so that he and Cheney will not have to eat and regurgitate the war and occupation they have served us before they are excused from the table on 20 January 2009.

The Next President Will Have to Be the Toughest S.O.B. . . .

. . . you ever thought you'd be voting for.

But get used to it, Progressives. It's never going to get any better than it is right now. Here's what the G.O.P. book is on Senator Obama:

From his radical stance on abortion to his prominence in the corruption scandals that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media, Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator -- not to mention the next President of the United States.

Obama has declared his presidential intentions, but it is up to well-informed and energetic conservatives like you to spare our nation from the scourge of a far-left President Barack H. Obama.

Get your FREE PDF copy of HUMAN EVENTS' new special report - Barack Obama: EXPOSED! - when you sign up for our free email newsletters. It's the only way you'll get all the ammunition you need to end Obama's White House dreams once and for all.

I just wanted to present the other side, because this website is strictly nonpartisan.

Arena Football in the Baghdad Super Bowl

Game in Overtime. . .

From where did this dream or fantasy come to me in my early morning waking hours? The only antecedent that comes to mind is Secretary of Defense Gates's optimism, as he recently strolled the streets of the Iraqi capitol like John McCain before him.

I found astonishing signs of normalcy. . . I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks, big ones, markets that are very vibrant. . . . It's a very mixed picture. . . It remains to be seen where we'll be in September.

Anyways, in this dream, I was a reporter in a poorly-lit Baghdad Bowl arena football game. Even though this was the final championship game, there were many teams contending. Only one team was wearing helmets, pads and uniforms. (Yeah, it was tricolors, probably red, white and blue.) This game was extremely physical with injuries, even fatalities, on every play. This didn't seem to be a problem for the highly partisan, blood-thirsty crowd. And, as far as the teams were concerned, there were always a supply of fresh replacements. Even coaches were frequently replaced. Of course, referees were dutifully blowing their barely audible whistles on all infractions. However, the penalty yardage assessed was never material because other barely noticed hooded field officials were always capriciously moving the line of scrimmage, ten-yard marker and the goal posts. The score board was the most erratic feature in my nightmare. Scores for all four or five teams were constantly being adjusted. And the time remaining? It was always the same: 6 minutes months to go.

I, as the sports reporter, was waking in desperation as to what to compose for my morning column. Not only would this grim contest not end before my personal deadline, but neither were there a stable score or notable turning points in this interminable scrimmage to report. I was about to settle for a description of the physical beauty and architectural features of the stadium. I reached for my camera and snapped off a hurried panoramic shot of my surroundings just as my faithful and merciful Dobie awakened me with his imperious cold wet nose.

Was a new day dawning? Or, was he just telling me it was time to wake up and smell the coffee?

Fathers' Day Greeting

Why can't we just . . . ?







Daughter-In-Law was trailing this bumper sticker on the way into town yesterday. It's from the Coexist Shop at XpressYourView. Of their artistic message, they say:

This unique image shows the interdependence of man, woman and the major religions of the world, in capturing the positive life-sustaining messages of coexistence and peace.

Whatever. It works for me today, anyways.

Except in Our Own Main Stream Media (MSM). . .

• Paris Hilton Ordered Back to Jail
• Paris Hilton out of Medical Ward
• Paris Hilton Gets A Visit
• Parents Say Paris is Cold And Sleep Deprived
• Research Shows Hilton Prison Time Longer Than Most

Bad news travels fast.

• Iraq Mosques Come under Attack
• Askariya Shrine Was Attacked for a Second Time
• Askariya Shrine Blast Destroys Shrine in Iraq, Setting Off Sectarian Fury

• 36 USA Kia in June
• No Drop in Iraq Violence Seen Since Troop Buildup
• Iraqis Are Failing to Meet U.S. Benchmarks
• Army to 'Muster' 5,000 Reservists

• All Is Not Quiet On The Turkish-Iraqi Front
• Struggle for Kirkuk Turns Ugly
• Kurdish Rebels Kill Three Turkish Troops
• Turkish Tanks Move To Iraq Border

• Conflict in Gaza
• Gaza on Verge of Collapse
• Hamas Close to Controlling Gaza Strip
• Hamas Seizes Broad Control
• The Road to Hamastan

• Walid Eido, Anti-Syrian Politician, Assassinated
• 10 killed in Beirut Bomb
• Lebanon Mourns Assassinated MP Amidst Calls for Revenge
• Beirut Cries for Revenge
• Lebanon Braces After Assassination

• Israeli Jets Able to Take Out Iranian Nukes
• Iran May Be Arming Taliban
• Iran Must Cease Arming Shiites
• Us Senator Backs Bombing Iran For Role In Iraq, Afghanistan & Lebanon

One candidate for the American Presidency foresaw all of this.

As the national and congressional debate over Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI) reached a crescendo, the then Illinois State Senator Barak Obama delivered this speech on 26-Oct-02 in Chicago:

. . . I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

America is in dire need of competent media and leadership.

Joe Lieberman, Warmonger

'Joementum' sees Bush's war occupation as losing its grip and seeks to turn it back into a war.

On the same weekend that Thomas Ricks (WP) writes that Pentagon officers are planning a small 'Post-Occupation' Force for Iraq, Leiberman (on Face the Nation) appeals for war against Iran:

I think we've got to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me, that would include a strike into - over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

There's a simpler, less bloody, cheaper solution to this disastrous occupation towards which Lieberman has turned his blind eye.

Bush-World According to Vladimir Putin

Between you and me, I don't think this Russian buys Bush's risky missile scheme.

I have located the complete transcript to Russian President Vladimir Putin's 9-June press conference in front of the G8 Newspaper Journalists. I have produced my own excerpts from the same because I think they are relevant to the record, they will not be available in the MSM and they apply to the discussion in previous thread.

In doing so, I follow my previously established practice of attaching preponderant importance to Q and A. Prepared statements don't interest me because I really want to know what is said as opposed to what is read to journalists. Here, then, are my cuts from the 6 June record:

To save space the transcripts have been moved to Files.
Please click to read!

The Post-Bush World

Can we afford to sit back and wait?

You've heard of NAFTA. Well, now we have COBTA!

I draw on two points from Fareed Zakaria's cover editorial for June 11th, as I have boldfaced below:

Today, by almost all objective measures, the United States sits on top of the world. But . . . . We have become a nation consumed by fear, worried about terrorists and rogue nations, Muslims and Mexicans, foreign companies and free trade, immigrants and international organizations. The strongest nation in the history of the world, we see ourselves besieged and overwhelmed. While the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs. . . .

In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush—a cheering prospect for his foes. . . . . In 19 months he will be a private citizen, giving speeches to insurance executives. America, however, will have to move on and restore its place in the world. To do this we must first tackle the consequences of our foreign policy of fear. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, unilaterally and pre-emptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face.

In a global survey released last week, most countries polled believed that China would act more responsibly in the world than the United States. How does a Leninist dictatorship come across more sympathetically than the oldest constitutional democracy in the world? Some of this is, of course, the burden of being the biggest. But the United States has been the richest and most powerful nation in the world for almost a century, and for much of this period it was respected, admired and occasionally even loved. The problem today is not that America is too strong but that it is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. Countries around the world believe that the United States, obsessed with its own notions of terrorism, has stopped listening to the rest of the world.

More troubling than any of Bush's rhetoric is that of the Republicans who wish to succeed him. . . .

Aye, there's the rub! A review of the recent Republican debate is indicative of what they have coming down the pike: extra-constitutional and theocratic governance, war, terror and empire-building. If repulsed in 2008, the same crowd - both indicted and unindicted - will be back at it in 2012 or 2016: the Iran-Contra's 3rd generation morphed and metastasized into more virulent anti-democratic strains.

Personally, I think Zakaria's statement

. . . it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush.

is both premature and minimalist. With 592 days to go, the full extent of the Cost of Bush to America (COBTA) cannot be fathomed.

• How much further will the heightened surge and air war against insurgents Gaza-fy Iraq?
• How much more will the future re-building blocks in Iraq be pulverized?
• How much more will our military services, particularly the Army, be degraded?
• How much more blood and treasure be squandered?
• How much longer can we risk a Bay of Tonkin incident in the Strait of Hormuz?
• How much longer can we risk re-starting the Cold War and re-igniting an arms race with the Neo-Soviets?

The congenital and unrepentant liars who lied us into Iraq are still in power, lying to extend their occupation of Mesopotamia, and lying to "lock in" future presidents to this illegal, ruinous and depleting aggression.

Let's not count our losses until their dealin's done. The full COBTA is still undetermined. Full-spectrum resistance to Bush and Cheney must continue. Investigate and impeach.

Because, what if it turns out 592 days from now that invading Iraq is not the greatest mistake Bush has made?

Preview on the Republican Candidates' Debate Tomorrow Night

Few Variations on their Theme of Terror: Then & Now

I want to offer up a couple of references to serve as a preview of the Republicans' debate tomorrow night at St. Anselm College, featuring 10 of their top presidential contenders. I don't expect it is going to provide a very complex discussion of the myriad problems that face this country. Instead, I'll go out on a limb and predict that all of these issues will continue to be seen and addressed through the GOP's standard 9-11 lens.

I recall that GOP strategist/pollster Frank Luntz compiled a loose-leaf notebook after the 2004 re-election of George Bush as sort of a post-mortem "lessons learned" going forward to 2006. Needless to say, this publication was not intended for general circulation, which makes it all the more interesting.

"Key Finding 4" (of 5) for Luntz reads as follows (Underscoring was in the original):

September 11th changed everything. So start with 9/11.This is the context which explains and justifies why we have 500 billion dollar deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6% and why we are still in a rebuilding mode. Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened, and that it is unfair to blame the current political leadership or corporate America for the consequences of that day.

Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit. The deficit is a touchy subject for both Republicans and Democrats - your supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility, and Democrats see nothing but hypocrisy. The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9-11 and the war in Iraq, which Republicans some times do, but not early enough in the answer.

"Answer" applies to prescribed directions as to how Republicans are to respond to questions or compose attacks.

That was then (2005). This is now (2007).

Dennis Milligan, owner of a water treatment company, was elected chairman of the Arkansas State Republican Party two weeks ago. In his first interview, Milligan told a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country:

At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on Sept. 11, 2001 and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.

Not surprisingly, Milligan says he is “150 percent” behind Bush in the occupation in Iraq.

Al Gore speaks eloquently of his exasperation at how the Bush administration has been able to pose continually and convincingly as hard and tough on terrorism when it was on their negligent watch that Americans sustained the most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor. It's not that complicated: the industry of fear-mongering is not rocket science and it has been around for a long time.

If an owner of a water treatment company has been able to put it together, the main street (public works!) media should be able to take it apart.

Tired of Waiting for Gore?

Then sign this petition and wave the bloody shirt.

I'm fed up with their surge, and I'm going with my own initial urge experienced in December of '04, (right after Kerry failed to retire the worst president in U.S. History). That's exactly when this vintage Gore '08 sticker went up on my vintage automobile.
Since 2000, nothing has been accomplished - certainly no 'mission' - but much has happened for Al Gore.

In these pages and others', I have long argued that Al Gore has nothing to win and everything to lose in having another go at the meat-grinder of Presidential politics. Against the backdrop (an amazingly appropriate expression) of the Bush-Cheney record, he has already demonstrated to historians that he is the greatest un-inaugurated president ever elected. If he does nothing more than what he is doing now, his increasingly exalted place in history is assured. The Economist put it this way:

Things just keep on getting better for Al Gore. He is not only a global-warming guru—the man who changed the climate of opinion on climate change—he is also an all-purpose political guru as well. He was mocked back in 2000 for accusing George Bush of “risky schemes”. Since then Mr Bush has turned into a Pandora's box of risky schemes. He was ridiculed in America back in 2002 for denouncing the invasion of Iraq. Few would ridicule him today. Europeans only have to look at Mr Gore (and these days there is slightly more of him to look at) to think of what life might have been like without the Toxic Texan. Surely he will soon have a Nobel peace prize to add to his Oscar.

So I have been asking every time Gore's name comes up, 'What's in it for him?' The obvious answer is that America needs Al Gore more than Al needs to be president. Or, as Eugene Robinson puts it, America Likes an Idiot, but It Needs Al Gore. I keep hearing snippets of brilliance. C-Span recently aired Gore's 50 impromptu minutes at George Washington University to which you can catch a link on SwiftSpeech. Trophy Wife Tivo-ed Charlie Rose's priceless interview for me, which you can grab on BlueMassGroup. (You can listen in the background while your 'Net surfing continues, as I am as I write this.)

Gore is the single candidate who is larger than the huge issues facing us. For me, he is the most prominent of the narrow circle of Democratic leaders who was right both on Gulf War I (1991) and on Bush's Invasion of Iraq (2003). He can speak to the importance of understanding how we got into Iraq-Nam; that understanding is essential to knowing how to extricate ourselves from that cluster-blunder as well as how to avoid additional ones. More than targeting Bush-Cheney, Inc., Gore's focus is on how phonies masquerading as wartime leaders were for so long tolerated by our media and a non-checking, non-balancing Congress. In a few short years he has established himself as an authority on American Media and its uncritical fraudcasting of errant political mythologies. Reason is the foundation of political democracy and Gore's critique, The Assault on Reason, seizes at the roots of the current American malaise. Gore speaks directly to the need to harness scientific methods to redress multi-faceted American crimes of commission and omission by “faith-based policies” in this short century. Not the least of these, of course, is Republicans' denial of An Inconvenient Truth, which is nothing short of appeasement of a future global holocaust.

Americans have been monstrously served in the last eight years. They deserve a momentously corrective change in course. They also have much for which to redeem themselves vis-a-vis the rest of the world. How better to accomplish this than by choosing the road not chosen for them before? How better to begin the reversal of the last eight years than with an absolute and unqualified repudiation of Bush and Cheney?

Let's be perfectly frank about it. We have been swift-boated and bitch-slapped for all of this short century. For Gore to become president would be for the earth-antagonist and government-hostile Republicans their worst nightmare. For Gore to become president eight years after the great train robbery in Florida would be a revenge served cold of Nixonian and Shakespearian proportions. Under a more positive interpretation, a Gore presidency would correct the course of American history and come the closest - of all Democratic alternatives - to annulling the Bush era.

If Al Gore gives us a second chance and chooses on 1-Nov-2007 to run for President, Americans cannot afford to decline his offer.