Category: Politics

Topic Header

Bush Caught Lying to Troops about Escalation Plan

Jon Ponder
Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

If I’m lying, you’re dying: Pres. Bush was caught rewriting recent history in a speech he gave Thursday to the troops at Ft. Benning, Georgia, some of whom are preparing for their third deployment to Iraq. Here is the transcript of the president’s load of bull:

“The [Iraqi] Prime Minister came and said, look, I understand we’ve got to do something about this violence, and here is what I suggest we do. Our commanders looked at it, helped fine-tune it so it would work. . . .

“The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to — by the way, that’s what you want your Commander-in-Chief to do. You don’t want decisions being made based upon politics, or focus groups, or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. And they analyzed the plan and they said to me, and to the Iraqi government, this won’t work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence. . . .

“And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, Mr. President, it’s not going to work until — unless we support — provide more troops. And so last night I told the country that I’ve committed an additional — a little over 20,000 more troops, five brigades of which will be in Baghdad.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, the facts are quite different. The strategy of escalating the war came from the West Wing, not the Iraqi leadership or Bush’s generals:

[A Washington Post story Wednesday] made it abundantly clear that adding U.S. troops was not an idea that emerged from the American commanders — nor, for that matter, from the Iraqis.

And, as it turns out, two stories in this morning’s New York Times add to the evidence: “A narrative pieced together from interviews with participants and from public testimony suggests that through much of the process, generals who had been on the ground in Iraq during the past year had favored that the new strategy begin with a substantially smaller force than the one that President Bush announced to the nation on Wednesday night. In the end, it was Mr. Bush who appeared to drive his commanders along to the conclusion that more troops were needed.”

Not only were the Iraqis not involved in creating the plan, they are not happy about it, according to another Times report:

So, not surprisingly: “Iraq’s Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush’s proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan.”

Where was the White House press corps on this? Didn’t anyone in that elite corps of journalists know the facts about the origins of the escalation?

Or maybe the president lies so often, they’re inured to it.

Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Trish

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) sent an otherwise party line newsletter to constituents this week extolling the boldness of Pres. Bush’s new strategy for Iraq. Yeah, whatever.

But this little tidbit was buried toward the end. Mel congratulated the “city” of Umatilla, Florida’s volunteer fire department for receipt of a nearly $35,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security.

And they even have a weekly newspaper!

Umatilla calls itself “the gateway to Ocala National Forest” on its website. It’s home to the Florida Black Bear Festival, “a fun and educational event” held each October. Although it was once a citrus-growing area, today you will find, “shops, restaurants, a honey co-op, doctors & dentists, a pharmacy, banks, and a weekly newspaper. Our community also features active civic clubs, churches, a library, exemplary schools and ample recreational activities.”

Its Wikipedia listing said it had a population of 2,214 in 2000 but it grew to 2,502 by 2004.

Martinez issued a press release announcing the grant, which he evidently views as tax money well spent.

“The AFG grant is terrific news for this department in Umatilla. The continued financial support for the men and women who voluntarily serve their communities will aid in the life and property protection services that they provide,” said Martinez.

Surge — Send In the Sick Soldiers

Buck Banks

Trauma ward: George Bush’s plan to pour more troops into Iraq will likely mean sending some soldiers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s a recipe for disaster, but can’t be helped because the all-volunteer army ain’t got depth. This is a story the Pentagon does not want you to know:

Between Christmas and New Year’s 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide after being informed they’d been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq.

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can emerge after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. A person experiencing PTSD can lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Pentagon doctors estimate that 12 percent of the 1.5 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD. Newly revised Defence Department guidelines for service-members with “a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance” say they may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a “treatable” problem.

Many believe President George W. Bush’s newly announced plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq will involve the redeployment of soldiers suffering from severe trauma. Press reports indicate Bush wants to implement his “surge” by speeding up previously scheduled redeployments and extending the tours of soldiers already in the field of battle.

That reality has increasing numbers of soldiers taking matters into their own hands.

Between Christmas and New Year’s 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide after being informed they’d been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq. In Iraq itself, the military announced on Dec. 30 that soldier Michael Crutchfield of Stockton, California killed himself north of the capital, Baghdad.

Leonard Pitts: Support for Bush’s ‘Surge’ a Matter of Trust

Buck Banks

Nailed it: As usual, columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. sussed out the nagging reason that most of us don’t condone President Bush’s latest plan to fix the war in Iraq — we simply don’t trust the guy who has lied to us, spied on us and proved to be the Worst President Ever.

Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

I know that we’ve been misled to an awful intersection of history where there are no good options, only options in varying shades of bad. I know how tempting it is to say we ought to wash our hands of this mess and bring our men and women home. I know that it still strikes me as wrong, for reasons both moral and pragmatic, to come in, blow up these people’s country, then walk away and leave them in the rubble.

Most of all, though, I know this: I do not trust my leaders. And politics is not the only, or even the primary, reason. No, at the end of the day, this is a question of character.

From the beginning, the architects of this war have shown a frightening nonchalance toward truth, a troubling willingness to treat fact as optional. Where reality has collided with political expedience, political expedience has invariably won. Where it has been inconvenient, it has been ignored.

It happened when the administration linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks even though one had nothing to do with the other. It happened when the White House used discredited intelligence to make the case for war. It happened when the president dismissed gloomy intelligence reports that did not jibe with his preferred view. It happened when he insisted we ”stay the course” even after it became apparent to everyone with eyes that the course led straight off a cliff.

So now, here comes Bush with sober mien and chastened air asking for one more chance to get it right. And if you sense in this corner a reluctance to comply, well, it has less to do with the merits of his proposed strategy than with the fact that it is his proposed strategy. Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

You can read the complete column here.

Olbermann Catalogs Bush’s Flip-Flops and Failures on Iraq

Jon Ponder

Since 2002, when Pres. Bush and his team began “marketing” the war in Iraq, they have floated a string of bogus, often contradictory rationales for invading and occupying Iraq. On Countdown Wednesday night, about a half-hour before the president announced his plan to escalate the war, Keith Olbermann offered a rundown of the president’s failure of leadership, so far:

“[Pres. Bush] has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.”
— Keith Olbermann

Before Mr. Bush was elected he said he was no nation builder. Nation building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital for America. He said he would never have put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs, mobile labs, secret sources, aluminum tubing, yellow cake. He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Moqtada al Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi army and deBaathified the government. He short changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life saving equipment, gave job to foreign contractors and not the Iraqis, staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship, not professional experience.

We learned that America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throws. He has said that more troops were not necessary and more troops are necessary, and that it‘s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators with flowers, as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. We would never stay the course. The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, was terrorist, was Baathists.

The war would pay for itself. It was cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars. And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Bush: Iraq Study Group Report a ‘Flaming Turd’

Jon Ponder

Scatman: What is it with our fratboy-in-chief’s obession with scatalogical slang:

“He’s also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides.”

Informed correspondents of the Washington Post and New York Times related in conversation that Bush furiously called the [Iraq Study Group] report “a flaming turd,” but his colorful remark was not published. Perhaps it was apocryphal. Nonetheless, it conveyed the intensity of his hostile rejection.

This is from the same class act whose term of endearment for Karl Rove is “turd blossom.”

Update: EvilPoet reminds us about the president’s obsession with fart jokes:

“He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we’re learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he’s still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can’t get enough of fart jokes. He’s also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.”

Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Inconvenienced in Washington Schools

Buck Banks

The heat is off: A guy named Frosty in Federal Way, Wash., is trying to ice Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” because it does not present an alternative to science as an explanation of why the world is getting measurably hotter. Frosty Hardison supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education — SURPRISE!

There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now.

When he heard that his daughter was going to be exposed to Gore’s PowerPoint presentation, Frosty complained about the film and the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it is calling a “moratorium” on teachers showing the film in class. Frosty explained why he wants to cool Gore’s jets to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”

Neither is the opposing view that the world will end in ice.

“Somebody could say you’re killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we’re encouraging free speech,” said school board member David Larson, a lawyer. “The beauty of our society is we allow debate.”

School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a “credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented,” that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an “opposing view.”

That shouldn’t be hard to do, as the oil companies have been spending millions to disprove man-made global warming for years, using the same tactics as the tobacco companies used to convince people smoking is good for you. Chrysler has gone so far as to criticize European views of global warming, describing climate change as “way, way in the future, with a high degree of uncertainty.”

So there’s plenty of naysayers out there. You don’t have to be a knuckle-dragging creationist like Frosty to find alternative theories. Like Satan is doing it. But the Hardisons’ opposition is actually more, er, simple than that:

“From what I’ve seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of ‘bad America, bad America,’ I don’t think it should be shown at all,” Gayle Hardison said. “If you’re going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don’t think the video should be shown.”

You can’t argue with that kind of rhetoric, now can you?

Laurie David, a co-producer of the movie, said that this is the first incident of its kind relating to the film.

“I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision,” David said in a prepared statement. “There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now.”

Sorry, Laurie, there is an opposing view to science. It’s called ignorance.

Polls: Majorities Have Lost Faith in Bush, War

Pensito Editors

Two new polls provide more evidence that decided majorities of Americans have lost conifdence in Pres. Bush:

Bush is scraping bottom even before his new war escalation gets underway.

ABC/Washington Post: Americans broadly reject President Bush’s plan for a surge of U.S. forces into Iraq, with substantial majorities dismissing his arguments that it’ll end the war more quickly and increase the odds of victory, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.

Indeed, rather than Bush bolstering public confidence, the national survey, conducted after his address to the nation on his new Iraq strategy, finds that a new high — 57 percent — think the United States is losing the war. Just 29 percent think it’s winning.

CBS: Fifty percent of those who saw the speech said they disapprove of the president’s proposals, while 37 percent said they approve. Just one-third of those surveyed said they support Mr. Bush’s call to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Following the speech, 68 percent of Americans — the same number as prior to the speech — said they were uneasy about the president’s ability to make decisions about Iraq.

The 29 percent in the WaPo poll who are under the delusion that we are winning in Iraq is very similar to another number: In 1974, roughly 25 percent of Americans still approved of Pres. Nixon when he resigned over his involvement in Watergate-related crimes. The Nixon number has historically been considered the benchmark for the hardcore Republican base.

If so, Bush is scraping bottom even before his new war escalation gets underway.