Pelosi Says Bush Did Not Consult Her on War Escalation

George W. Bush is not the only American aristocrat in office today. But Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and others see themselves as public servants. On the other hand, Bush sees himself as a king, with all the royal entitlements thereto ascribed:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that President George W. Bush did not consult her before announcing his new strategy for the war in Iraq — a sign that, despite the cozy rhetoric, the relationship between Washington’s two powerhouses has already had its share of friction.

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president’s minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new “way forward” for U.S. forces in Iraq.

“He’s tried this two times — it’s failed twice,” the California Democrat said. “I asked him at the White House, ‘Mr. President, why do you think this time it’s going to work?’ And he said, ‘Because I told them it had to.’ ”

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, ” ‘I told them that they had to.’ That was the end of it. That’s the way it is.”

SOTU: Jim Webb for President

There couldn’t have been a starker contrast between Pres. Bush’s pre-packaged pablum in the State of the Union speech last night and the Democratic response from Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia. In particular, what he said about Iraq was devastating to Bush’s tissue of lies and homilies:

This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night.

[This] country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering: Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

SOTU: Bush Will Not Mention Failed Katrina Recovery

CNN just reported that the White House has admitted that Pres. Bush will avoid referring to the post-Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast.

From a political perspective, it is easy to see why. Pres. Bush’s direction of the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was abysmal. It also marked the turning point in his term in office when millions of Americans could no longer ignore his incompetence.

The president’s polling fell in the aftermath of the hurricane and has never recovered. In fact, his botched handling of the response could be seen in the Washington Post/ABC poll released yesterday, in which 54 percent of Americans said they felt they could not trust the president to handle a crisis.

No Protection for Surge Troops — or the Ones Already There

The problem with having a commander in chief whose only personal consideration in fighting a war was how to get out it is becoming clearer. Bush keeps sending troops off to fight in his private war of aggression without armor or protection.

Most of the 21,500 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq as reinforcements will not have access to specialized blast-resistant armored vehicles

…the Pentagon’s effort to protect its troops against roadside bombs is in disarray, with soldiers and Marines having to swap access to scarce armored vehicles and the military unsure whether it has the money or industrial capacity to produce the safe vehicles it says the troops need.

On Jan. 10, The [Baltimore] Sun reported that most of the 21,500 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq as reinforcements will not have access to specialized blast-resistant armored vehicles because they are in such short supply.

…In congressional testimony and interviews last week, senior Army and Marine Corps officers acknowledged that they are struggling just to meet the needs of service members already in Iraq. Even if the Pentagon can find millions of dollars not currently budgeted, and even if it can find factories to produce the armored vehicles, most U.S. troops in Iraq will not have access to the best equipment available, as President Bush has often promised.

The Army acknowledged last week, for example, that it is still 22 percent short of the armored Humvees it needs in Iraq despite heated criticism in 2004 and 2005 over the lack of armored vehicles. Army officials said it will be another eight months before that gap can be filled.

Maybe part of the problem is the current leadership’s decision to use big-ass, tough-looking Humvees. Didn’t wars used to get won without those?

To augment its fleet of armored Humvees, the military is intent on buying thousands of new armored vehicles whose V-shaped hulls deflect blasts from beneath upwards and outwards, unlike the flat-bottomed Humvees that absorb the blasts. These Mine-Protected Vehicles, or MPVs, designed and manufactured for years by South Africa and other countries, have a proven record of surviving powerful blasts.

Based on requests from commanders in Iraq, the U.S. military needs 6,465 MPVs, according to Lt. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, the Army’s top supply officer. Under the current program, the first portion of those vehicles wouldn’t be delivered to Iraq until March 2008 or later, even if the services can find the funding.

Let’s hope most of the troops will be elsewhere (and I don’t mean Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan) by March, 2008.

None of these facts will keep Bush from continuing to lie like a rug. Let’s all pledge to drink a shot during tomorrow night’s State of the Union address every time he mentions how dedicated he is to providing the best protection for our troops in the field.

Poll: Vast Majority of GOPers Support Bush, War

Dead-enders: According to the new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, while almost two-thirds of Americans (60 percent) no longer believe the war in Iraq is worth fighting, fully three-quarters of Republicans remain convinced that America should stay in the middle of Iraq’s sectarian civil war:

By focusing on slight drops in Bush’s approval ratings, the Traditional Media overlook the threat posed to our national security by the blind, cult-like devotion to the president.

[Only about] one-fourth of Republicans said they did not believe the war was worth fighting, and a roughly equal number opposed the troop increase.

Even more alarming is the fact that a whopping 39 percent of Americans still approve of the job performance of George W. Bush, whose incompetence has been extraordinary by any rational standard.

In its analysis of these numbers, the Times, like most in the Traditional Media, focuses on the fact that support is diminishing slightly for the president and his war. But as long as Bush and his advisers know they have even this meager level of support they will continue to pursue their disastrous course in Iraq. By focusing on occasional slight drops in approval ratings, the media overlook the threat to our national security posed by this blind, cult-like devotion to Pres. Bush by a third of U.S. citizens.

Iraqi PM: Bush, Rice Comments Comfort Terrorists

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki responded yesterday to criticism of him and his government by Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Condolezza Rice, saying that their grim assessments were giving aid and comfort to terrorists:

“I believe such statements give a morale boost to the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort, making them believe they have defeated the American administration.”
— P.M. Maliki

Commenting on a recent statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he said, “Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the [Iraqi] government is on borrowed time,” humorously suggesting that it might be the Bush administration that is on borrowed time.

“I understand and realize that inside the American administration there is some kind of a crisis situation, especially after the results of the last election,” he said.

Maliki said suggestions by Bush officials that the U.S. did not fully support his government played into the hands of insurgents.

“I believe such statements give a morale boost to the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort, making them believe they have defeated the American administration,” Maliki said. “But I can tell you, they haven’t defeated the Iraqi government.”

The question this raises is whether Maliki is being told to act defiant toward his puppet masters in order to create an illusion of independence, or whether the puppet is truly cutting his strings.

Rocket Scientists, Brain Surgeons Agree: End is Near

Really smart people think, after six years of Bush, the world is in big trouble. But Bush is probably still trying to figure out how to “bring it on” faster.

The world edged closer toward nuclear holocaust and environmental catastrophe, a prominent international group of scientists warned today, moving their symbolic Doomsday Clock ahead two minutes.

“It is now five minutes to midnight,” said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “This change reflects the global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and by climate change.”

It is now five minutes to midnight on the Doomsday Clock

…The symbolism of the move is significant because the organization, which includes more than a dozen Nobel laureates, has moved the clock only 18 times since it was set to seven minutes to midnight in 1947. The clock has been closer to midnight, two minutes away after the Eisenhower administration tested a nuclear bomb in 1953. But it is also a long way from its most optimistic setting, at 17 minutes to midnight in 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today’s change was the first since 2002.

The organization cited North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on military uses and proliferation of nuclear weapons and the presence of 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia. The organization added global warming to its concerns, saying in its statement, “the dangers of climate change are nearly as dire as those of nuclear weapons.”

Bush: Iraq “Has Still Got Some Maturation to Do”

First, Saddam Hussein is executed in such a way that even Bush feels sorry for him. Next, Hussein’s half-brother dies from having his head ripped from his body instead of from hanging. And finally, the United Nations releases an estimate that 34,452 innocent Iraqis died brutally during 2006.

So what does Bush have to say on PBS’s Newshour about how it’s going for Iraq? Oh no, he did-ent.

“…it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.”

Yeah, he did. And it gets worse.

“No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq.”

Let’s review.

“Lousy” is how Ohio State played against the Florida Gators.

“Lousy” is how Britney’s career has been going lately.

“Lousy” is how I feel the next morning after one too many vodka and néctar de granadillas.

“Lousy” does not even come close to describing the average of 94 random and horrific deaths every day in a country plunged into fear and darkness and violence.

And “lousy” is also how I feel knowing that this idiot isn’t done yet.

Bush Completes Military Takeover of All U.S. Intel Agencies

Using the military to fight a civilian force like al Qaeda is like using a chainsaw to perform an appendectomy.

Path to oligarchy: Pres. Bush’s not-so-stealth campaign to turn the United States into a giant banana republic is happening on so many fronts, and so quickly, that it is hard to keep up. Over the past few years, he has appointed (and the Senate has confirmed) military officers rather than civilians to head the nation’s intelligence agencies:

The expected confirmation of retired Navy Adm. Mike McConnell as director of national intelligence will complete the Pentagon’s takeover of the intelligence community and end any pretense of civilian influence, let alone control, of the community. Flag officers are now in control of the Central Intelligence Agency [Gen. Michael V. Hayden] and the National Counterterrorism Center [Vice Admiral (VADM) Scott Redd] as well as the key position of undersecretary of defense for intelligence [Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr].

This is another area in which the Republican-controlled Senate of the 109th Congress failed to provide a check on Pres. Bush’s reckless disregard for the institutions of our democracy.Now the Democratic-controlled Senate has an opportunity to take corrective action:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Armed Forces Committee must agree to abolish or at least weaken the position of undersecretary of defense for intelligence, which was created by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to solidify the Pentagon’s control over the intelligence community. The Pentagon played a major role in the politicization of intelligence that was used to justify the war against Iraq.

Using the military to fight a civilian force like al Qaeda is like using a chainsaw to perform an appendectomy. The military is tied to its contractors who need multimillion dollar contracts to satisfy their shareholders. Spending billions on giant weapons programs will not stop a single terrorist attack.

Bush on Saddam’s Execution: ‘I Didn’t Watch the Whole Thing’

Sneering at the pleas for clemency from a woman he is about to have executed, George W. Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “Please — don’t kill me.”

The only unqualified success in Pres. Bush’s misadventure in Iraq is the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. So it’s odd that he told “60 Minutes” that he couldn’t stomach watching Saddam die:

He said he was discouraged by the handling of Saddam Hussein’s execution, which he saw on an Internet video but stopped watching before the trap door opened under the former Iraqi leader. “I didn’t want to watch the whole thing,” Bush said.

What happened to the macho governor of Texas who, in a 1999 interview with rightwing writer Tucker Carlson, sneered at the clemency plea of Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer whom he had approved for execution:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?'” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,'” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.'” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

So George W. Bush has the courage to put a woman to death — and to mock her while he is at it — but is too cowardly to watch a video of the death of a man he toppled a nation to apprehend.