Ted Kennedy Spreads Some Truth On Petraeus's BS Sandwich

Like only the "liberal lion" can do it:

So Much For Our Troops

It always amuses me that Republican die-hards like to scream at the left that we hate the troops. I have a feeling that they like to stay at home all day and play with little toy soldiers, trapped in a bubble shielded from the reality that war is hell. They like kicking ass, but tune out the true human costs. Over 4,000 soldiers and contractors are dead, but to them that means nothing more than the hundreds of billions that we are spending (more like borrowing for) on the war itself. On the upside for these sick bastards, they have a friend in President Bush and his new lackey General Petraeus.

From The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is sending strong signals that U.S. troop reductions in Iraq will slow or stop altogether this summer, a move that would jeopardize hopes of relieving strain on the Army and Marine Corps and revive debate over an open-ended U.S. commitment in Iraq. [...]

Petraeus seems at this point to be inclined to declare a pause in troop reductions after July, although no decisions have been made and there are competing pressures from within the Pentagon. The Army in particular wants additional reductions to enable it to shorten Iraq tours from 15 months to 12 months. The longer tours are among pressures that Army leaders fear could break the force.

Petraeus speaks regularly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials to keep them informed of his thinking, although he has not yet made a recommendation to Bush. A senior administration official said Petraeus has made clear he is "concerned about a rush to 10" _ a reference to the 10-brigade force level that some administration officials see as an attractive target to hit by the time Bush leaves the White House a year from now.

Well he better keep talking before trying to act on slowing the troop reductions. Our soldiers want to come home and their families want to see their Moms, Dads, and children as soon as possible. Military families realize that their loved ones are fighting a pointless war, so should the President.

Hello Jack, Chalabi Is Back!

Watching the Chuckie movies as a kid I must admit I got scared, but nearly as frightened as seeing Ahmed Chalabi's face around again. Not only is he back on the Iraqi government's stage as a lobbyist for failed reconstruction efforts, he is being praised by our top General in Iraq, none other than General David Petraeus. Now why would anyone object to this guy?

From RawStory:

Before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Chalabi was a primary merchant of bogus intelligence that inflated the country's weapons capabilities and ties to terrorists. His top customers were the White House, Pentagon and American journalists.

Most surprising, perhaps is his alleged associations with Iran. According to a 2004 report in the UK Guardian, US intelligence has "hard evidence" that Chalabi passed US secrets to Iran.

"Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbor, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq," the paper said.

Chalabi is also has been sentenced to 22 years in jail in Jordan for embezzling $300 million at a bank he created.

Not a bad record I must say! He'll fit in perfectly with the rest of the cronies in Iraq, heck, he'd be pretty much at home in Washington too, that must be why Bush's in-country stooge loves him so much...despite all that flawed intelligence and passing U.S. secrets to Iran stuff.

Bill Clinton Slams Republicans For "Outrage" At MoveOn

If anyone knows how low Republicans can go to smear a Democrat, it is Bill Clinton. He sees right through the Republicans feigned anger at the MoveOn ad that called the Petraeus report into question.

Feingold Goes After Petraeus

One of the shining lights in the Senate....Russ Feingold questioned Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the sensibility of fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq as opposed to Pakistan and the rest of the world.

Rebutting Petraeus

Petraeus may be the current General on the ground, but there are plenty of experts who have been studying the conflict in the least biased way. Distinguished men and women such as fmr. NSA chief Richard Clarke, Jon Alterman, Mara Rudman and Rand Beers take a look at the realities of Iraq and what Petraeus is saying.

Petraeus Gets His "Blah Blah Blahs" On

General David Petraeus finally submitted his long-awaited (and previously leaked) report on the status of Iraq today. Surprisingly (to no one) it furthered the mission of the President and did not address the realities both militarily and politically in the war-torn region. Congressman Lantos didn't buy it and neither did I.

From The Huffington Post:

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House's bidding, he said firmly, "I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress."

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

Petraeus said a decision about further reductions would be made next March.

With all due respect that is a very weak rebuttal. You can say "nuh-uh" all you want, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to believe you. March could bring another increase in troops for all we know. The only constant here is that our men and women are being killed and injured. The monetary toll keeps rising as well and the bullshit indicators are through the roof.

Like I mentioned before, Congressman Lantos called Petraeus on the BS...but will Congress act appropriately and end this war? That is the question.

More Presidential Delusions From The NY Sun

Well the rag known as the New York Sun is at it again. Presumably they saw their pick for President in Dick Cheney as ultimately hopeless, so they went to pick another. Who would come out of their magical bag but General Petraeus. Oy!

From The New York Sun:

......"What I cannot countenance is for you today to commend my skill and bravery in Anbar and Baghdad and then tomorrow to hold votes on how futile this struggle is. So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle Â-- but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs."

* * *

That's the speech we'd like to see General Petraeus deliver to Congress on the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. No doubt he has another speech in mind. For he understands that he stands a better chance of getting the support he needs from Democratic leaders in Congress if he gives them a chance to save face and reverse course. That chance is for Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to tell the Democratic Party base that their victory at the polls in 2006 forced the president to change strategies. Today our soldiers are patrolling streets whereas a year ago they were cooped up in the bases. Today Sunnis have a stake in destroying Al Qaeda.

The Democrats could even claim that General Petraeus would not be in command today had it not been for Democratic gains in the mid terms. Secretary Rumsfeld, after all, is a man who punished General Petraeus after his first tour in Iraq by sending him to Fort Leavenworth. No doubt this kind of line will infuriate the hard left who only eight years ago was holding mock war crimes tribunals of President Clinton for his decision to stop Slobodan Milosevic. But to continue to appease this fringe has infuriated many other Americans, such as the commanders in Iraq who are fighting everyday for that country and our own.

What the hell are they smoking over there?

The Petraeus Report Circa 2004

Apparently the General has spoken his mind before about Iraq, giving the situation a glowing assessment. Then he finds himself running the show (wonder how that happened) and now it his turn to be in the Congressional spotlight. Will he be candid this time or keep earning Bush's loyalty? I'm gonna go with the latter.

Katie Couric: If CBS Doesn't Work Out, The White House Could Be A Good Gig

Every time I read something about or from Katie Couric I just want to cringe. Her latest gambit is reporting from Iraq during the week before the Petraeus report (not the one that was already finished, the doctored version presented by the White House). Amazingly enough, her words are strangely similar to those coming from the Grand Poobah's mouth when he visited Anbar province a couple of days ago.

From WCBS-TV:

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

(snip)

"The spike in police has really been significant," Couric said. "The incidents in Iraq have gone down dramatically."

Katie says that if only we restore basic services, everything will be just peachy in Iraq. Wow, Bush's surge must really be working. The only problem is that little things like reality get in the way of Bush's claims and Couric's "reporting." Both of them probably tune out reports like this one, showing the fear in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Who reads the Washington Post anyways, right? Certainly not the President with hand fed clippings by whoever is left at the White House. Who knows where Katie gets her information....I'm thinking they brought along a teleprompter for her short visit over there.

Hey Katie, Tony Snow is leaving his spot in the Bush Administration next week....you know you could certainly beat out Dana Perino for his position.

What Are We Still Doing There?

Petraeus lies his ass off with no proof for the hope of our missing soldiers, Tony Blair goes to Iraq pretending everything is going great and Jimmy Carter blasts them all for their insanity:

Gated Communities To Be Introduced In Baghdad

Congressman Mike Pence's comment about how al-Shorja market was like something in Indiana was an absolutely ridiculous comment. The military's plan to divide Baghdad into secure zones goes beyond the empty rhetoric of a deluded Republican from Indiana. The excellent reporting of Robert Fisk exposes the plan that has failed in the past for our military among others, and what the new troop placements mean for our foreign policy in the region.

From The UK Independent:

The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success.

But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades - comprising about 40,000 men - south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful - and potentially aggressive - American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.

The "genius" behind this plan is none other than General David Petraeus. Why the general would implement this experiment in Baghdad is beyond me. The 'divide and conquer' tactic has never worked in the past and it will not here in the present. The common sense approach would be to pull out and deal with the situation diplomatically, but common sense has no place in the Bush Administration and those that serve at the President's pleasure.

Crazy John McCain

The bullshit the spews out of this man's mouth is seemingly unrelentless. We've all heard he's now for the rightwing after he was against them. A straight-talker turned Bush sycophant and all around scumbag that will try to do and say anything to become the next President. Yesterday his delusions stretched into the realm of Iraq.

From ThinkProgress:

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN that that President Bush’s escalation in Iraq is going so well, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee.” On Monday, he told radio host Bill Bennett that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.”

This morning, during an interview with McCain, CNN’s John Roberts rebutted McCain’s assertions, stating, “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee.” He added that a new report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey “said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection.”

Faced with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong, McCain denied he’d ever said it: “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”

Check out the video on ThinkProgress. To see the man stumble in his own words would be hilarious, if only the topic wasn't so serious. I can't believe for one moment that the GoOPers actually thought he had a chance to be President. We'll see what happens with their other contenders....and what mistakes they make down the road.

One Out Of Four Ain't Bad

Many of Bush's Generals have either quit or been expelled for criticizing or disagreeing with the President's decision to escalate in Iraq. Now it seems that even one of his biggest fans with the rank of General isn't too excited about the plan he is executing either. David Petraeus, the military's head honcho in Iraq is giving the 'surge' a one in four chance of success.

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) recently spoke with the General and had this to say:

Smith's public comments on the war have grown increasingly complex and controversial in recent months. The Republican senator made national headlines in December when he gave a speech on the Senate floor, saying Bush's war policy is "absurd" and "may even be criminal."

Since then he has strongly opposed President Bush's call for a "surge" of 20,000 troops in Iraq. Smith was one of 14 senators to vote last month against the nomination of Gen. George Casey as U.S. Army chief of staff.

"If you're really going to do a surge, you don't do it with 20,000, you do it with 250,000," he said, noting that Baghdad is a city of nearly 7 million people. But he said the United States cannot afford such a response; instead it has to come from the Iraqi Army.

Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding.

Of course we all know that there aren't 250,000 troops available and Bush would never even try to commit that amount of troops. The number of 20,000 is hard to defend calling the build-up a mere 'surge.' Increasing that amount by more than ten times would put his poll numbers in the tank, in case you do not consider approval ratings in the low 30s bad enough.