The Surge Was A Failure And Here Is The Proof

John McCain and his Republican cheerleaders say the surge has worked in Baghdad. While our troops have done their best, the truth about the "peace" in Baghdad is much different from what George Bush tries to claim. This reporter went into Baghdad to see what life is really like in the city, and what he found is horrifying.

McCain Doesn't See Lives Of Troops As Important

Once again McCain made himself look like an ass on television (probably since he is one) by talking about his supposed strong suit, the war in Iraq. If McCain wants to talk about the war and say that bringing the troops home isn't that important, then more power to him. Keep on talking Johnny boy, the American people are starting to understand what kind of scoundrel you are.



Senator, our troops stationed in South Korea, Japan and Germany aren't being shot at every single day. The reason we have those casualties is because the troops are in Iraq. We need to bring them home and John McCain is clearly against that.

McCain Doesn't Have A Clue On Iraq, Nor Cares Much About It

Sometimes I worry about John McCain. He has so many problems remembering what is going on in the world that perhaps he should go back to school or at least get a tutor to tell him about world events. Shias and Sunnis confused him, but maybe that doesn't matter to him because in his crowd, Muslims are all the same and in some cases they don't even have to be Muslim. Yet McCain tries to claim he is the number one candidate in the race that supports the troops, even if he doesn't want to help them pay for college. Now we find out he doesn't even know how many soldiers we have in Iraq and the campaign could care less.

From ThinkProgress:

Yesterday at a townhall meeting in Wisconsin, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that troops in Iraq are already down to “pre-surge levels”:

So I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it’s long and it’s hard and it’s tough and there will be setbacks.

This assertion is wrong. There are now 155,000 troops in Iraq — far above the 130,000 before the surge.

But today on a conference call with reporters, the McCain campaign tried to dismiss this factually inaccurate statement. “So what?” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a strong McCain supporter. “What does that amount to?” He added that McCain just “misspoke.” According to adviser Randy Scheunemann, McCain meant to say that troops will be eventually drawn down to pre-surge levels.

Um, nice try Kyl. No one is going to buy that except for McCain's group of sycophants that surround him like yourself. Certainly the troops are smart enough to see through it. McCain makes up whatever he wants to paint a rosy picture, no matter how bad the real situation is. It conjures up the thoughts of what he'd be like in the Oval Office. Oh yeah, we already have one of those "painters" in there already.

The Truth Behind The Surge

While George Bush and John McCain claim success in Iraq, the truth on the ground is far different:

The Surge Has Not, Will Not And Has Never Worked, Period.

Does anyone remember what the surge was supposed to accomplish. One year ago when Bush proposed this insanity, he wanted to give the Iraqi government breathing room to work on the stability of their government. If you listen to him and his supporters now, they claim it worked because violence is down.

Well woo hoo, I guess killings that number in the thousands is better than people dying in the tens of thousands. Of course, sane people realize that the reason so many people are dying period is that the underlying problems are nowhere near to being fixed. If anything, the growing sectarianism that has separated people from each other based on religion has taken people out of harms way (and don't forget the millions of refugees taken out of the mix that now live in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc).

The Washington Independent has more:

The Sunni insurgency, all but decimated in the imagination of the surge advocates, has demonstrated something of a surge of its own in recent weeks. Baghdad, Anbar and Diyala provinces, the hotbeds of the insurgency, have seen a return of high-profile suicide bombing. Prominent collaborators with the U.S., like the so-called "Concerned Local Citizens" militias, have been targeted for death by insurgents and terrorists. "Of late, though, as you’ve been seeing, is certainly an increase in the number of suicide events that occur with individuals, mostly with a suicide vest wrapped around their waist," Adm. Greg Smith, a spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, said in a blogger conference call last week.

Iraq security statistics over the past 13 weeks, obtained exclusively by The Washington Independent, tell the tale. In Baghdad, improvised-explosive device (IED) detonations explosions in Baghdad have ticked up slightly to 131 in January from 129 in December—and the last week of January is not included in these latest figures. Countrywide, there was an increase in IED explosions to 2,291 in December from 1,394 in November, followed by a dip to 1,270 in the first three weeks of January. But the week ending on January 25 saw seven suicide explosions Iraq-wide, the most since the week ending Dec. 21, 2007.

It is too early to conclude that the security gains of the surge are unwinding. But they’re being put under stress in a manner not seen since the so-called "Surge of Operations" began in mid-June. Some speculate that the insurgency, knocked on its heels by the changing tactics of U.S. forces in mid-2007, is beginning to adjust, a few months before the surge draws to a close. "I think there’s some credibility to that argument," said Brian Katulis, a national-security expert at the liberal Center for American Progress. "It all begs the question of what’s the grand endgame."

The endgame is really where its at. It depends on who you talk to of course. For Bush and many conservatives, it is to have a permanent presence that allows them to feed the mouth of the military industrial complex. For the Iraqis it is to control their own country. For the Democrats and progressives, it is to get the hell out of there and let the Iraqi people have what they want, freedom from us.

So How's That Surge Going?

Olbermann takes a look at the surge, one year later:

George Bush Can't Stop Divorce In Iraq

Bush wanted to "surge" so that the Iraqi government could come together, kiss, and makeup (so that they can pass an oil law that is favorable to him). However the news yesterday was that that dream is nowhere near reaching reality. All sides in Iraq have dug in and oppose everyone else. No matter how much our military tries to manipulate the situation, a unified Iraqi government is not in the cards.



Now can we discuss a Federalized Iraq?

Edwards' Ad Responds To Bush's Speech

John actually paid for an ad on MSNBC to make a quick response to George Bush's ridiculous speech:

And Now A Special Message From The Decider

Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen to the land where delusions rule and reality is outcast, yes this is Bush's World. Nothing makes sense here and anything the President says goes, even if it truly nuts. The President delivered his speech from the other side (in the White House) to tell us all how great Iraq is going and how we will kick ass. Too bad for him, most of the audience lives in the real world. Fred Kaplan explains down below.

From Slate Magazine:

It is true that Bush is ordering the withdrawal of 5,700 of those troops—one Army brigade and a Marine expeditionary unit—before Christmas, a few months earlier than they need to go home. This is clearly in response to a request by Sen. John Warner, the ranking Republican on the armed services committee. The Republicans need political cover on the war; they need to show they're bringing some troops home soon; they hope that doing so will defuse the war as an election issue. Bush hopes this will be enough to keep them on his side—and limit the support for Democrats' proposals of speedier withdrawals.

But by acceding to this political compromise—and by selling the larger withdrawal as a decision instead of as an inescapable fact of life—Bush undermined his case that the fight for Iraq is the central fight for civilization. If this claim is true, why pull any troops out earlier than necessary?

His showcase example of success was the recent alliance between U.S. troops and Sunni insurgents to join forces against jihadist terrorists in Anbar province (an alliance, by the way, that was formed before the surge). Yet even so, the president said in tonight's speech, "In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly." Again, under the president's own assumptions, what's the substantive case for letting any troops leave?

The speech was rife with evasion and fantasy from the outset.

And then of course there was a specific course of action for which the surge was to implement, and not surprisingly the President conveniently forgets:

The rationale for the surge was to improve security in Baghdad and thus give Iraq's national political leaders the "breathing room" to reconcile their differences, pass key legislation, and form a unified government. The recent debates over conflicting charts and statistics—some showing a decline in civilian deaths and sectarian attacks, others showing an increase—are beside the point. The point is whether life in Baghdad has improved enough to allow for political progress on a national level. As Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker conceded several times in congressional hearings this week, no such progress has been made.

President Bush tonight tried to suggest otherwise. He correctly outlined the premise of the surge strategy: "For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and help Iraqi forces to maintain it."

But then he said: "As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home." (Italics added.) Does he really think, whatever the advances toward these goals, that we have reached "success in meeting these objectives"?

As he himself admitted, those goals haven't yet been achieved in Anbar, much less in Baghdad, much less in national Iraqi politics. He could not evade today's news—that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, leader of the Sunni tribes' revolt against al-Qaida in Anbar province, has been assassinated.

Yeah, things are just peachy in Iraq. Someone needs to take that crackpipe away from George, is Laura still around?

Have You Seen "The Surge" Yet?

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.

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.

Its Not The Surge Stupid

One of CNN's few shining examples of journalists is Michael Ware. For some time now, he has been in Baghdad, covering the war like no other. He speaks truth and doesn't care for sound bites or repeating U.S. government propaganda. He tell it like it is, and here he explains the implications of the surge and more importantly, the chaos of Iraq and all the things Bush and all the war supporters do not want you to hear.

Another Surge For September?

September is approaching slowly but surely and things are staying just as bad or worse in Iraq since the President initiated the surge. He claims things haven't worked because the full compliment of troops just got there a few weeks ago. So what happens when we have even more dead soldiers and civilians by the September benchmark deadline? General Peter Pace hints that we might be in for part two of the surge.

From the AP:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. military is weighing new directions in Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

The only prudent planning the military and the President could undertake would be for a withdrawal of the troops. Preferably the sooner the better. It has been constantly made clear that we need to leave if we want to see any progress over there. The U.S. occupation has done nothing but help tear Iraq apart while the Sunni, Shias and Kurds slaughter each other.

I won't be surprised if Bush tries this tack in two months time. If Congress resists, he'll just try to roll over them just as he did back in May. As long as Democrats remain cowardly when push comes to shove, they can bluster all they want on TV and in the newspapers but it won't mean a damn thing. We need to get rid of this guy and we need to bring our soldiers home from the miserable mess in the Middle East.

Al-Maliki Aide: Nevermind

The Bush Administration must have been pretty pissed off to hear Nouri al-Maliki's comments on Saturday saying that U.S. troops could leave anytime they want to. That doesn't mesh with George's surge of death in Baghdad for our soldiers. He thinks he can win this way and no one is going to convince him otherwise, even the Prime Minister of Iraq. Check out the difference in tone between Saturday and today.

From The Huffington Post:

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," al-Maliki said.

Those comments appeared to undercut President Bush's contention that the 155,000 U.S. troops must remain in Iraq because the Iraqis are not capable of providing for their own security.

On Sunday, al-Maliki's adviser Yassin Majid told The Associated Press that the prime minister meant that efforts to bolster Iraq's security forces would continue "side-by-side with the withdrawal."

Majid urged the United States to continue building up Iraqi forces so they would be ready whenever the White House orders a troop withdrawal.

Although the comments are meant to connect each other, they mean entirely different things when it comes to geopolitics. Bush certainly has considerable influence in making "corrections" from the mouth of al-Maliki. Though the Prime Minister certainly didn't like doing it, hence his aide making the revision instead of himself.

The President needs at least a couple of stooges to make his delusions of winning in Iraq continue and al-Maliki is one of those unwilling Larry, Moe or Curlys.

Ron Paul And General Batiste Take On The War

The 'Surge' In Death

President Bush and his sycophants have been touting the surge in troops because of a deluded feeling that Iraq is getting safer. John McCain made a heavily protected appearance yesterday in order to back up that misbegotten belief. Unfortunately, along with the escalation of our troop numbers in Iraq, the death toll for Iraqis continues to climb higher.

From Juan Cole:

For all those journalists and politicians who keep insisting that there are new "glimmers" of "hope" in Iraq because of the new security plan started 6 weeks ago, here is a sobering statistic from the Iraqi government. (I'm looking at you, John McCain. See below for more on McCain).

Iraqis killed in February: 1806 (64.5/day)
Iraqis killed in March: 2078 (67/day)

As the wire services report, that is a 15% increase if figured by the month. I provided the figures, above, to show that it is an increase even if figured by the day (4%). (I should have, in the earlier version of this post, highlighted the latter in the exposition rather than getting carried away by the wire service headline, as some readers have kindly or sometimes acerbically insisted.)

The reality on the ground is, as usual, far different from what many Republicans are trying to claim. No matter how many troops we put in harm's way, the killing will continue. Sunnis will terrorize Shias and vice-versa. This civil war is beyond repair for our soldiers to fix. We need to pull out and look for a diplomatic solution. It is not our place to be caught in the crossfire.

The Surge Keeps On Surging

Whatever you may call it, Bush's escalating surge in Iraq is nothing but trouble. First he said an additional 21,500 troops would be sent to Iraq, now it might be somewhere in the ballpark of 30,000 due to the need of support staff (including Afghanistan operations). Sounds like another case of Bush's fuzzy math. Unfortunately it isn't as simple as sending fresh soldiers. The process involves sending less people home to rest and more to go over and fight.

From the Huffington Post:

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay — President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

Bush took a direct swipe at the Democratic Congress, basically taunting them to cower to his devastating will. The expression on his face shows this whole thing to be a game where he can be the bully and make Democrats do what he says. Unfortunately many Democrats have been divided over what to do and are mainly acquiescing to the Decider's every wish. In some cases they want to spend more money than the Adminstration wants in order to attach 'strings'. These strings do nothing to rein in Bush's wild plans and Bush merely scoffs at them.

What happened to the Democratic backbone? Don't the donkeys understand what the midterm elections meant? The people want a change in Iraq and it is past time to give America what it deserves for her troops serving for a misbegotten war and not being home with their families.

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.