Category: Politics

Topic Header

Post-Withdrawal Iraq Could Resemble Bloody Aftermath of First Bush’s Gulf War

Jon Ponder

In 1991, the first Pres. Bush promised military support to Iraqi rebels after Saddam’s surrender. But Bush broke the promise and Saddam’s forces masssacred 30,000 rebels and buried them in unmarked graves.

This is how Pres. George W. Bush’s failed Iraq war will end. When U.S. forces pull out of Iraq — whether it is next week, next month, or, as Pres. Bush now prosposes, 10 years from now, the civil war for control of the country will escalate.

The warring factions will include various sects within the majority Shia communtiy, the Sunni minority and the Kurds seeking secession and independence. There may also be forces of outside fundamentalists militias, including al Qaeda, who move in to fill the vaccuum left by departed American forces.

The battle for control of Iraq could be bloody and long, perhaps comparable to the war in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Unfortunately, George Bush lit the fuse on this bomb in the heart of the Middle East in 2003, when he foolishly ordered the invasion of Iraq. Those of us who opposed the war from the start, and who now favor moving our troops out of harm’s way, should be prepared for the violence and bloodshed that erupt in the aftermath of our retreat.

To get a sense of what Iraq will suffer when the U.S. pulls out, we need look no further back than 1991, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

Inmediately after the end of the first Gulf War, Pres. George H.W. Bush promised Iraqi Shiites and Kurds American military support if they would rise up and overthrow the newly defeated Saddam Hussein. In a broadcast to Iraqis via Voice of America on Februrary 15, 1991, then-Pres. Bush said:

There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations’ resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.

But when the rebellion got underway, Bush and his war council, which included Defense Sec. Dick Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell, changed their minds about helping the rebels.

This decision led to the massacre of at least 30,000 rebels who were buried in mass graves. Mr. Bush himself has said that what happened to the Shiites was one of the deepest regrets of his presidency

Details of the uprising and its horrific aftermath below the fold.

[…]

Sanctuary for Santorum in D.C. Think Tank

Buck Banks

Stink tank: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has landed at a Beltway think tank following his royal pasting in the midterm elections, according to Congressional Quarterly. The irony of Santorum — never known for his thoughtful, measured rhetoric — going to work for something called a “think” tank was not lost on us.

The 48-year-old Santorum will head a program at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy focusing on “America’s Enemies.” According to the center, Santorum will examine a “growing array of anti-Western forces that are increasingly casting a shadow over our future.”

It’s pretty clear who Santorum believes America’s enemies are: His valedictory speech in the Senate Dec. 6 focused on “Islamic fascists” as the prime threat to the United States.

Santorum, in fact, had sought throughout his 2006 Senate campaign to portray himself as tougher in the war on terror than his highly touted Democratic challenger, Bob Casey, then the state treasurer and namesake son of a popular former governor.

But Santorum’s overall image as a conservative hardliner — on social and economic issues as well as on national security — made him highly vulnerable in an Eastern swing state where voters have increasingly been leaning Democratic, especially in an election year when the national tide was running strong against the Republican Party. CQPolitics.com, throughout the campaign, had Santorum rated as the underdog.

Nonetheless, most observers were stunned by the blowout margin by which Santorum was sent packing. Casey won the race by 59 percent to 41 percent, with a margin of more than 700,000 votes.

Gale Norton is Going to Hell

Trish

I hope all those cynics who said former Interior Secretary Gale Norton was too damn friendly to industry are listening. Because, man, were you guys right!

Shell’s getting a bargain, no matter how much Norton sold her soul for

Former Interior Secretary Gale Norton is returning to Colorado to work for Shell, the energy behemoth that is pouring millions of dollars into an ambitious research project to produce oil shale on the Western Slope…

Norton will provide legal advice and services to Shell beginning in mid-January. She was unavailable for comment.

Or just unable to come up with anything to say that could ever in a million years put a good face on this.

But let’s face it. Shell’s getting a bargain, no matter how much Norton sold her soul for.

“I think Shell is serious about going in for commercial production of oil shale,” [Director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency in Aspen, Randy] Udall said. “They would need permits for air quality, permits for water quality, and Norton’s Colorado background plus her experience in the Interior Department makes her the perfect person to spearhead their permitting process.”

Yeah, perfect. Say hi to everyone in hell for me when you get there, girl.

Snow Job Tony Takes WH Lying to a New Depth

Jon Ponder

Culture of deception: White House spokesman Tony Snow revised history yesterday:

I think the public ought to just listen to what the president has to say. You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn’t he?

This is wrong is so many ways. ThinkProgress sets the record straight:

[On] May 1, 2003, Bush stood in front of a large banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” In the opening of his speech, he declared, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” He called the “battle of Iraq” a “victory.” In his radio address shortly after the speech, he boasted, “I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Additionally, as Bob Woodward reported in October, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to pressure the White House to take out of the speech the actual phrase “Mission Accomplished,” but he couldn’t “get the sign down.”

In Oct. 2003, then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the White House — not members of USS Lincoln — had “take[n] care of the production of the banner.”

Olbermann last night, referring to Snow:

I mean, you were hired to lie. At least do it well. We‘re not all third graders out here.

Hussein’s Hanging — A Little Clarification About Iraqi Customs

Buck Banks

Muffed snuff: Mowaffak al-Rubaie is Iraq’s national security advisor and, apparently, a loose cannon when it comes to TV interviews. Al-Rubaie was a witness at Saddam Hussein’s hanging, and soon after the execution he spoke with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the conduct of witnesses and guards before and after Hussein was hanged. Electronic Iraq has provided al-Rubaie a forum to correct the wrong impression his interview may have given regarding Iraqi customs and behavior when executing a depraved dictator.

From the CNN transcript of the interview:

Cooper: But you are proud of what you did witness? I mean, you — I assume you heard the shouting. You heard — you saw the dancing around his body, because I know you talked about that. Are you proud of that?

Al-Rubaie: This is this a tradition of the Iraqis. When they do something, they … they dance around the body, and they express their feeling. Anderson, what is wrong with that? If that upset the feeling of some of the Arab nations and Arab rulers, I think that is tough luck to them.

Here is al-Rubaie’s clarification of his CNN comments and his answers to critics of the timing and method of Hussein’s execution.

Recently, an interview I had on CNN has been taken out of context and quoted by multiple other sources, unfortunately damaging the image of Iraqis. I mentioned that some of the Iraqis attending Saddam’s execution were happy that Saddam’s era had come to an end, and that all Iraqis can now work together in starting a new chapter. Some of them expressed their happiness through a traditional dance usually preformed at celebrations and weddings.

In no way did I mean that dancing around dead bodies is “an Iraqi tradition”. In fact, it is neither an Iraqi tradition, nor an Arab or Muslim one. Our religion and traditions ban any gloating over someone’s grief, even if we loathed that person and thought he got what he deserved. Our Arabic traditions and Islamic rules pertaining to death prevent cussing, shouting, vengefulness, and wrath towards those about to die; in addition, we are even prohibited from speaking ill of the dead. Our Iraqi traditions in particular are against sectarian or ethnic taunting. All the mistakes that happened during this execution do not reflect our heritage and religion, and they do not reflect our values in building the new Iraq.

So the thugs in the crowd around the gallows were breaking both Arabic and Islamic prohibitions by shouting sectarian taunts at the condemned? He mentions “mistakes,” but does not explain how they happened, which is the key point. How came there to be a whole bunch of rowdy Shiites there for the hanging, anyway?

We do understand many people’s point of view who criticized the execution’s timing as well. We did not mean to offend anyone by picking the Holy Muslim days of Eid Al-Adha, and we regret any other offensive technicalities that occurred during the execution, but we urge the international community to remember the bigger picture, and see Saddam’s execution as a milestone representing an end of a dark era. We, at the Iraqi government, wanted the trial and execution of Saddam to be a reason for putting Iraqis together and uniting Iraq, but it was used by many political groups inside and outside Iraq as an excuse to divide Iraqis furthermore and to find reasons for increasing the violence.

Unfortunately, it seems that many people around the world were distracted from the real issues, which are Saddam’s crimes over the last several decades. Our Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, went as far as threatening to re-think Iraq’s relationships to any countries that mourn Saddam or find excuses to criticize his trial and execution. We want to keep the attention focused on Saddam’s victims and their sacrifices, and also on the great possibilities of the post-Saddam Iraq.

Oh, so by hanging Saddam, the Iraqi gubmint intended to bring Iraqis — Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Christians — together. Good call, Mr. Maliki, man. I imagine any rethinking going on is being down by civilized nations that would not want a relationship with a bunch of blood-thirsty tribal maniacs.

We hope that the Western media will not end up playing into the hands of those who wanted to increase the sectarian tension between Iraqis, and we assure everyone that all the mistakes that occurred during Saddam’s execution are condemnable, and that our only intention was to follow our traditions in being respectful and professional during the execution. The Iraqi judicial system will prosecute and punish all the people who transgressed the standards of law and decency during Saddam’s execution.

I will conclude with a quote from our prayer for the dead, a great example of the tradition of tolerance in Islam: “All Mighty, don’t bring about divisions after his death, and forgive us for our sins.”

Oh, puh-lease! If al-Rabaie really wants to do something to protect the image of Iraqis, he’ll just shut up.

Poll: Bush Sucks as President, Commander-In-Chief

Buck Banks

Duh: This just in from the Bleeding Obvious File — George W. Buch is the Worst President Ever, as confirmed by Zogby International’s analysis of its own poll results. This is mildly significant because John Zogby, president of ZI, is, well, kind of a Republican, but even he can’t ignore the numbers.

Even those who identify themselves as Born Again or Evangelical Christians, a group once viewed as ardent Bush supporters, have a negative view of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War.

A December Zogby International telephone poll showed Bush’s national job approval rating sank to 30 percent, falling again from the 31 percent approval rating he dropped to in early June. The survey of 982 likely voters nationwide was conducted Dec. 5-8, 2006, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. Americans’ satisfaction with Bush’s job performance has continued to fall from the 61 percent he enjoyed in April 2003, shortly after the start of the war in Iraq, our polling shows. Zogby International has been tracking questions from Bush’s job performance rating to how American’s view Bush’s handling of the Iraq war since the war began in 2003.

Bush’s performance on the Iraq War shows similar low levels of satisfaction — a majority of American’s polled in December (74 percent) give Bush negative marks — the greatest level of dissatisfaction our polling has found since we began tracking Bush’s performance on the war in 2003. Overall, the majority (54 percent) say Bush has performed poorly on the war and 20 percent say he has had fair performance — only 19 percent grade his performance as good and 5 percent as excellent.

Even those who identify themselves as Born Again or Evangelical Christians, a group once viewed as ardent Bush supporters, have a negative view of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War — 46 percent say he has handled the war poorly while 17 percent give him only a fair grade. The same poll also shows only one in three (34 percent) Americans say the war in Iraq has been worth the loss of American lives — among the lowest percentage recorded in a long series of Zogby polls on the question. In November 2003, 44 percent of Americans polled said the war in Iraq was worth the loss of American lives.

Bush Admin Withdraws Four Judicial Nominations

Jon Ponder

On at least one front, Pres. Bush has had to change course as a result of the Democrats taking control of Congress this year. He has pulled the nominations of four of his most conservative nominees for judicial appointments:

William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Michael Wallace all asked to have their appointments withdrawn, these officials said. Judge Terrence Boyle was informed of the White House’s decision, according to an ally.

Haynes is the Pentagon’s top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush’s now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees in the war on terror. He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Boyle is a federal judge in North Carolina, and his appointment to the 4th Circuit provoked opposition from Democrats who cited his rulings in civil rights and disability cases, as well as his higher-than-average reversal rate by higher courts.

Myers, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sparked opposition from environmentalist organizations and their allies among Senate Democrats.

Wallace’s appointment to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew opposition from Democrats, civil rights groups and the American Bar Association.

For anyone who believes these guys withdrew their nominations of their own volition:

Deputy White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president was disappointed about the withdrawals.

Sen. Johnson Upgraded to ‘Fair’ Condition

Jon Ponder

Forbes.com:

Sen. Tim Johnson’s condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, four weeks after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage, his office said Tuesday.

The South Dakota Democrat, who was rushed to the hospital on Dec. 13 and underwent emergency surgery, remains in intensive care, said his spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher.

“The senator continues to make progress,” Fisher said. “The next step would be rehabilitation and we hope that would happen within the week.”

Bush: Lamest of the Lame Ducks Limps Toward Irrelevance

Buck Banks

Lonely at the bottom of the top: As the Democrats enjoy their newfound ascendancy in the Congress, the president is finding less and less to enjoy in the waning years of his second term. Indeed, if he wasn’t such an arrogant and ignorant bastard, one could almost be tempted to feel a little bit sorry for him. Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford offers a snapshot of the Bush administration in decline.

With a new Congress that’s run by Democrats, a restive public that’s pining for change and a government in Iraq that’s descending into chaos, the way forward in Washington might not include George W. Bush.

It seems the president is positioning himself as just another spectator on the outskirts of power — firing off letters to the editor. Perhaps he should start his own blog.

Despite the power he has to ramp up his use of the veto, and his tenacious hold on his powers as commander in chief, Bush faces a tough challenge to remain relevant in the waning 24 months of his presidency. Indeed, if not for his war-making clout, this president might be the lamest lame duck ever.

There was something almost sad about Bush putting his own name on an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that laid out his legislative agenda on the eve of the formal Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill. Clearly gone are the days when Vice President Dick Cheney could use a private meeting with Republican lawmakers to set the congressional priorities list. Now, it seems, the president is positioning himself as just another spectator on the outskirts of power — firing off letters to the editor. Perhaps he should start his own blog.

Democrats are making the most of returning to power at the Capitol after a dozen years on the outs. Armed with a midterm election mandate widely seen as a repudiation of Bush, they are talking tough about dealing with the White House. For symbolic starters, Cheney was compelled to give up his ornate office just off the House floor to Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

As the clock ticks past the three-quarters mark on the Bush presidency, it is the new, 110th Congress and its crop of 65 new faces that will appear the fresher and more promising, garnering the lion’s share of news media attention — while administration figures come across more and more as yesterday’s news.

In response to the political test posed by that dynamic, Bush is calling for bipartisanship. Funny how the losing side in an election almost always ends up being the one to call for magnanimity. After 12 years of being made almost invisible, especially in the House, Democrats appear in no mood to do anything but pay lip service to the current calls for collaboration. Although careful not to say so publicly, congressional Democrats are champing at the bit for payback. Evicting Cheney from his office was just the beginning.
[…]

Poll: GOP in Military Drops below Half

Jon Ponder

President Bush is having a disastrous effect on his party, including separating it from one of its more reliable constituencies:

The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60 percent. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56 percent. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46 percent.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the “Republicanization” of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.

The de-Republicanization of the military as a result of Bush’s incompetent leadership is actually a benefit to the nation. It is dangerous for our military to be under the control of a political party, especially one that is run by delusional demagogues.