Tag: Iraq

If Bush Had Macro-Managed War, Veto of Emergency Funding Would Not Be an Issue

Jon Ponder

In all the hot Rovian rhetoric Pres. Bush is spouting about vetoing the Democrats’ emergency supplemental war spending bill, the fundamental fact that it is an “emergency supplemental” is routinely overlooked.

Bush complains about the Democrats “micro-managing” the war, but if he had “macro-managed” it, “emergency” funding would not be necessary.

As he enters the fifth year of his war in Iraq, why are emergency supplementals still necessary? If he were competent — and honest — he would have included the cost of fighting the war as a line item in the annual budget he sends to Congress.

Bush complains about the Democrats “micro-managing” the war, ignoring the fact that if he had macro-managed it, “emergency” funding would not be necessary.

Speaking to a friendly crowd at the National Cattlemans Beef Association in Washington, the president responded yesterday to the Senate’s version of the supplemental by threatening a veto, and making the contorted assertion that if he kills funding for the war, the public will blame the Democrats.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response was a beautifully crafted short statement that put politely put the president in his place:

Calm down with the threats.There is a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role; we want you to respect ours. This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the President’s conduct of the war. Let’s see how we can work together. This war is diminishing the strength of our military, not honoring our commitment to our veterans, and not holding the Iraqi government accountable.

In a reference to Bush’s increasingly apoplectic responses to confrontations from Congress, the Speaker also advised the president to “take a breath.”

Nothing to Fear But the War on Terror

Jon Ponder

The timing of the Sept. 11 terror attacks couldn’t have been better for al Qaeda and worse for us. When they launched the attacks, Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen were probably not aware that a radical coalition of neo-cons and Christian nationalists had gained control of the United States government — just as most Americans were not aware of the true natures of Dick Cheney, George Bush and the cabal that surrounded them.

A normal president would have rallied the public to conquer their fears and shoulder on after such a horrendous attack.

A normal president would have rallied the public to conquer their fears and shoulder on after such a horrendous attack — as people have done in Britain, Israel and other places for decades. But this group of radicals operating out of the White House did the opposite.

Using carefully crafted rhetoric (and even a color-coded chart), they instilled a fear of terror in the public and then used it as a throttle to ratchet public paranoia up and down to suit their own politicals needs. The most dastardly bit of messagemeistering in this, however, was the way they aggrandized the attackers, raising them in stature from the ideological gang of street thugs that they are to warrior priests and adversaries worthy of the United States and its “global war on terror,” which they are not.

Here’s Zbig today in the Post:

The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The Bush cabal could not have succeeded without a propaganda tool like the fear of terror. Bush could not have won reelection without his ability to terrorize voters — gay bashing would not have been enough on its own.

The attacks worked out so perfectly for them that it’s easy to see why some people believe 9/11 was an inside job. (It wasn’t.The Bushies are operationally incompetent and could never pull off such an elaborate fake.)

If our grandparents had been as easily terrified in the 1930s as Republicans are today, they would have watched in horrified silence while the Germans conquered Europe, and hidden under their beds when they came after us.

We need national leaders who call on us to be both brave and smart in combating terror. Using the military to fight terrorism, as I have said before, is like using a chainsaw to perform an appendectomy. The British army did not stop the Irish terrorists after decades of attacks, just as the Israeli army will never stop the terrorist attacks from Palestinian insurgents.

Stopping terrorism requires starts with street-level intelligence and a population on alert, but it also will require understanding the enemy in all its dimensions, not the cartoon characters presented to us now.

Watch ‘War Zone Diary’ Tonight on MSNBC

Buck Banks

A slew of TV critics are urging Americans to watch NBC correspondent Richard Engel’s documentary of his experiences covering the war in Iraq for three years. It’s supposed to be harrowing and contains some of the most gruesome images yet broadcast in Western news media, but is being hailed as an important window into what life in Baghdad is like for journalists covering the war. Airs at 10 p.m. tonight on MSNBC.

That’s So 2005: Bush Requests “No Strings” Budget

Trish

As George W. Bush celebrated the opening of the fifth year of accomplishing the various missions in Iraq, he showed he can still gall people without breaking a sweat.

Bush at the opening of Year Five: “Just shut up and give me the money”

Bush asked Congress to hand him a blank check with no strings attached. You know, like the good ol’ Republican-controlled legislature always did. Those were the days.

As Bush delivered a speech to inaugurate Year Five, he reached new heights of saying nothing but in a really threatening way.

“There will be good days and bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds.”

…“It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home,” he said. “That may be satisfying in the short run. But I believe the consequences for America’s security would be devastating.”

…[Democrats] have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.”

Unfortunately, we have all come to find out that Bush’s beliefs and assessments are usually 180 degrees off from reality, and that his motivations have more to do with greed and religious zealotry than the welfare of people about whom he understands almost nothing. Meaning both the Iraqis and us.

Congress is being entirely reasonable.

The House’s war spending bill includes a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. The timeline would speed up if the Iraqi government cannot meet its own benchmarks for providing security, allocating oil revenues and other essential steps.

Friday Afternoon News Dump: Surge Already Growing

Trish

Even more troops than we were told would be are now headed to Iraq as part of the Bush “surge.” I’m shocked that the administration that puts every dollar for the Iraq War through on an emergency basis wouldn’t tell us up front how many troops would be sent in the surge.

No I’m not.

The Bush Team is also master of the Friday afternoon bad news dump, the technique of holding unflattering stories until no one’s paying attention. And what better time to hide a whopper like this than the Friday leading into St. Patrick’s Day weekend?

An article by Reuters posted at 3:36 p.m. Eastern time Friday:

The Pentagon is sending an additional Army brigade of 2,600 troops to Iraq, raising the number of soldiers approved for Bush’s security plan to nearly 30,000

The Pentagon is sending an additional Army brigade of 2,600 troops to Iraq, raising the number of soldiers approved for President George W. Bush’s security plan to nearly 30,000, a senior defense official said on Friday…

Bush approved a plan in January to send 21,500 combat troops to Baghdad and Anbar province to crack down on violence that has been characterized by U.S. intelligence officials as a civil war between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shi’ites.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told Congress this month that 4,000 to 7,000 additional support troops, including military police, would be needed to augment combat forces.

The numbers released on Friday show the Bush administration has already approved 7,200 support troops. The list includes the Army combat aviation brigade as well as 2,200 detention operations troops and another 2,400 combat and service support personnel.

Liars, liars, liars.

Hawaiian Rep Calls Bush Emergency Iraq Budget “Baloney”

Trish

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D — Hawaii), has given us talking points for when Republicans start claiming Democrats are the bad guys by refusing to keep up Bush’s sham emergency funding of his wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abercromie is chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, and he’s followed the money trail.

Some of the so-called emergency replacement items in the 2007 request won’t even be available until 2010 or later

The Bush administration has asked Congress to approve $93.4 billion in emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of 2007 and another $141.7 billion for next year. This, on top of a proposed 2008 defense budget of $481.4 billion.

Please note that the two supplemental appropriations requests are termed “emergency,” which ought to mean unexpected or unpredictable costs. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began. …

Why is a supplemental request the budget vehicle of choice? Because as an emergency measure, it doesn’t count against the budget ceiling that Congress adopts to guide spending, and therefore isn’t figured into government estimates of our annual budget deficit. So, for the last four years, these emergency spending bills have helped President Bush obscure the true cost of the war.

As “emergency” legislation, these supplemental requests don’t get the same scrutiny as regular annual appropriation bills. In fact, for the last five years, there’s been heavy pressure from the administration and the Republican majority in Congress to approve them quickly and without argument. Those who have opposed, or even questioned, any part have been accused of “not supporting our troops.”

The Bush administration is already saying that if it doesn’t get everything it wants — or if Congress adds requirements for troop readiness or demands for protective equipment — our men and women in combat will run out of bullets or be left stranded in the desert.

Baloney.

[…]

Poll: Disapproval of War May Have Hit Tipping Point

Jon Ponder

Your fellow Americans are slowly awakening to the horror Bush has inflicted on the nation:

Sixty-four percent now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, up six points from last month to a new numerical high.

A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there — potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.

While solutions remain vexing, for the first time ABC News/Washington Post polls show a narrow majority of Americans support setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush’s troop surge; most oppose it strongly.

It all makes for a continued hard slog for the president: Just 36 percent approve of his job performance overall, very near his career low of 33 percent last month. Bush hasn’t seen majority approval in more than two years — the longest run without majority support for any president since Harry Truman from 1950-53…

Bush is paying the continued price of an unpopular war. Sixty-four percent now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, up six points from last month to a new numerical high. (It was 63 percent in October.) A majority hasn’t said the war was worth fighting since April 2004, and it’s been even longer since a majority has approved of how Bush is handling it. Sixty-seven percent now disapprove; 55 percent disapprove strongly.

Poll: Most Americans Drastically Undercount Iraqi Civilian War Deaths

Jon Ponder

Propaganda works:

The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans’ tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower…

Whatever their understanding of the respective death tolls, three-quarters of those polled said the numbers of both Americans and Iraqis who have been killed are “unacceptable.” Two-thirds said they tend to feel upset when a soldier dies, while the rest say such deaths are unfortunate but part of what war is about.

Last October, a team of U.S. and Iraqi epidemiologists using a standard sampling method estimated that the number of Iraqi civilians who have died was 655,000.

Dems Plan to Repeal Bush’s 2002 War Resolution

Jon Ponder

This would be sweet justice if it happens:

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops…

In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush’s war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.

The 2002 resolution, which had Karl Rove’s pudgy political fingerprints all over it, was rammed through Congress in October, immediately before the mid-term elections in order to get Democrats in Congress on the record about Bush’s bogus war plans.

The resolution has had long-ranging political ramifications. It successfully snared Bush’s opponent in 2004, Sen. John Kerry, who stupidly said, on the record, that he voted for the resolution before he voted against it. Even now, 2008 frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton is being pressured to apologize for her vote in favor of it.

Repealing the resolution would likely put the president and the Congress on a course toward a constitutional showdown over the War Powers Act and the president’s ability to wage war without congressional interference.