Tag: Iraq

Bush Launches Campaign to Blame War Failure on Critics

Jon Ponder

The Pentagon’s attack on Hillary Clinton’s patriotism yesterday may be the opening salvo in an aggressive new disinformation campaign from the White House, according to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown last night:

“This, sir, is your war. Sen. Clinton has reinforced enemy propaganda? Made it impossible for you to get your ego-driven, blood-steeped win in Iraq? Then take it into your own hands, Mr. Bush. Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations. Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.”
– Keith Olbermann

…For days, possibly for weeks, there have been these murmurs and rumblings in places that this was the next political tactic to be taken by the administration, that it was time to get out the blame the critics, it‘s the antiwar faction‘s fault, if only they had not said what they said, did what they did, protested violations that they protested, this all would have gone well in Iraq.

Earlier in the week, Sen. Clinton wrote to the Pentagon to inquire about the status of planning for a redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, the senator’s request was hardly out of bounds. And yet the response from the Pentagon came in the form of a barely veiled allegation that even by inquiring about withdrawal she wasaiding and abetting the terrorists:

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” [Under Sec. of Def. Eric] Edelman writes, “reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

Edelman adds: “Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Edelman, a partisan Republican, was said to have written the letter under the direction of the vice president. (It sure doesn’t sound like Sec. Gates.) Sen. Clinton responded by calling Edelman’s accusations “outrageous” and “dangerous.”

Olbermann was less restrained. He accused the president of attempting to make his critics the scapegoats for his own failings as a war president:

[…]

Bush Shifts Blame for War Failure away from Himself, Rummy onto Gen. Tommy Franks

Jon Ponder

One of Pres. George W. Bush’s latest delusions is that history will view him more kindly than he is seen today, just as Pres. Harry Truman has become a beloved figure over the course of the five decades since his presidency. But it was Truman, a Democrat, who once famously said that the “buck” stopped with him — that he was ultimately responsible for all the decisions made by his administration.

“My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.”
— Pres. Bush

At a news conference yesterday, Bush casually shifted blame for the early failure of his war in Iraq away from himself and his Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld onto a subordinate, Gen. Tommy Franks, proving, once and for all, that he is no Harry Truman, and never will be:

[FOX NEWS REPORTER:]Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam’s army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq’s government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I’m sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.

Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we’ve reviewed the plan. I remember — and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes.

The reason the generals answered the president in the affirmative is because they knew that saying otherwise would get them in deep caca with their boss, Bush’s Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

But even if it were true, Bush’s blame-shifting yesterday serves to underscore his weakness as a leader. The truth is, Gen. Franks knew what all the top brass knew: Generals who disagreed with Rumsfeld, Bush and the party line were fired.

Franks certainly has some responsibility for the failures in Iraq, but ultimately, history will lay the blame on his bosses:

[…]

White House in Panic Mode as Iraqi Leaders Urge Citizens to Arm and Republicans Do the Same

Trish

You know it’s serious when Bush finally takes note. The last time something contrary to his dignitudish certitude penetrated the concrete and barbed wire around his shrunken brain was when Americans took Congressional control from Republicans in last year’s elections.

If he thinks he took a whuppin’ then, look out. Iraq’s chaos and Republicans’ inability to keep denying it have reached critical mass.

After a weekend that left hundreds dead and wounded, there’s one thing Iraq’s leaders agree on: their security forces are outgunned. They now suggest civilians take up the slack.

Isn’t the A.A. definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results? We are like, so there.

Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died today in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.

The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.

Things are so bad that some in Iraq are ready to stop pretending that what they have is a government.

Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government.

“The situation has become terribly bad,” al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. “All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not.”

Republicans in Congress are finally catching on. And they’re not happy.

ABC News has been told the White House is in “panic mode” over the recent defections of Republican senators on the president’s stay-the-course policy in Iraq…

The Republican defections are seen as “a crack in the dike,” according to the senior White House official, and National Security Adviser Steven Hadley is most concerned…

The source of all this concern is the reckoning about to come later this week, when Bush has to acknowledge just how bad things are, and how, even without Rumsfeld to blame, Bush just can’t get his Iraq act together.

A senior White House official told ABC News the report will be “mixed.” The White House does believe there has been progress on the security front in Iraq, but the political progress is obviously very bad.

One official familiar with the report said there are some bizarre categories under benchmark that say “satisfactory, nonsatisfactory and unsatisfactory”.

And yet, even with classifications like subsatisfactory, dissatisfactory, and freakin-bad-anti-satisfactory, Bush is unwilling to do anything different. Isn’t that the A.A. definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing and expect different results? We are like, so there.

Despite the report’s mixed conclusions about the president’s policy, senior White House officials told ABC News not to expect Bush to announce any kind of changes or new strategy.

Why Won’t Cindy Sheehan Just Shut Up and Go Away?

Buck Banks

Two months ago we thought we were rid of Cindy Sheehan, whose well-intentioned anti-war activities were rendered virtually meaningless by her own personality and her poorly chosen associations. In May Sheehan said she was quitting the peace movement and retreating from public life to mend her health and personal life.

Unfortunately, she’s back and yacking at the media again.

Now, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is threatening to challenge the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2008 elections unless Nancy Pelosi files articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush within the next two weeks. Ooh, I’ll bet Nancy’s just quaking in her Prada heels.

“I think all politicians should be held accountable,” Sheehan told The Associated Press on Sunday. “Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war.”

While Sheehan does have a point that the Democratic leadership has rendered the term “Democratic leadership” an oxymoron, the thought of Sheehan running for Pelosi’s seat in Congress is absurd. Granted, Pelosi has had her blond moments since becoming House speaker, but she has a track record that trumps Sheehan’s “name recognition,” which Sheehan says is her strong suit.

While I would never belittle Sheehan’s loss of her son or deny her right to protest against the war in Iraq, I think she would be doing the peace movement, the impeachment movement and all of us a favor if she would just quietly fade away. And stay away.

The Search for Iraq’s WMDs is Officially Over

Trish

The U.N. announced today, five years after our invasion of Iraq because we were told by our president that he knew for sure they had weapons of mass destruction, the search is over.

The resolution, approved by a vote of 14-0, terminated the mandate of the U.N. bodies responsible for overseeing the dismantling of Hussein’s programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles…

Since 2005, the United States has been trying to get the Security Council to wrap up the work of the inspectors, who were pulled out of Iraq just before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and were barred by the U.S. from returning.

So George, you can stop looking. Now can we bring our troops home?

Addicted to Bush Fatique? Vote for Fred Thompson

Trish

Lest anyone be pining for an angry white pretender to sanctification because somehow Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Karl Rover just aren’t enough…there’s always Fred Thompson.

Yes, if you were afraid you would be leaving behind the shoot from the hip (and into the face) policies of the world’s worst, yet angriest, bumblers you should back Fred “The Lobbyist” Thompson for president. It’s the best way to ensure more of the same.

Talk about great ideas! Remember this ad beating the drums for war with Iraq back in 2003? As if from Cheney’s own mouth comes the final note of fear mongering: “And when people ask, ‘What has Saddam done to us?’ I ask, ‘What had the 9/11 hijackers done to us…before 9/11?'”

Oooooh, scary stuff.

California Moves Closer to Placing Iraq Withdrawal ‘Advisory Measure’ on Primary Ballot

Jon Ponder

A California Senate committee has approved an “advisory” measure on Pres. George Bush’s war in Iraq that will appear on the presidential primary ballot next February if the bill passes in both houses of the legislature and if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger approves it.

The fact that Gov. Schwarzenegger is on record supporting withdrawal from Iraq does not mean he would approve the bill if it would hurt the liberal GOP presidential candidate, Rudy Giuiliani.

The California Legislature is controlled by Democrats, so it is likely the bill will pass. Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican who came out for withdrawing troops from Iraq a few days before he was reelected in a landslide last November:

“I think that we should get out of there as quickly as we can because, you know, we should have a deadline of when we pull the troops out and figure that out and work together with the government in Iraq. I think they are doing that now.”

Schwarzenegger was told the president has opposed setting a deadline, and Schwarzenegger didn’t let up. His response: “Well, I think that eventually he will have to put a deadline on there. I think the American people will demand it.”

Schwarzenegger claims to represent a “post-partisan” approach to politics — a stance most Democrats in the state view with suspicion and that most Republicans revile.

Since the ballot measure would go against the best interests of the liberal GOP presidential candidate Rudolph Giuiliani, it is possible Schwarzenegger could risk angering California Democrats and veto the measure to help Giuliani.

Troops in Iraq are Getting Shortchanged on Medical Care

Buck Banks

Need some M*A*S*H with that surge? A recently uncovered Army report (not released to the media or public, of course) found that medical support services in Iraq are not what they should be. The report noted shortcomings in medical staff training, medevac facilities and a lack of lab personnel and facilities that means blood samples are shipped all the way to Germany for testing.

‘It could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August.’
— George W. Bush, on his surge

A shortage of lab and pharmacy technicians makes it difficult to conduct tests near the battlefields, according to briefing slides prepared by the Army Medical Department. When the Army can hire lab personnel, they frequently need additional training, according to the briefings. To complete lab tests, the Army must send patients’ samples to the Landstuhl Regional Army Medical Center in Germany, a process that can take two to three weeks to return results to medical facilities in Iraq.

Even when lab work can be done in Iraq, it is often conducted on an ad hoc basis. “Blood collection and apheresis [separation of blood components, such as platelets] are ‘Hey you’ tasks,” according to the briefings, which were conducted in February during a mid-year review for Maj. Gen. Ronald Silverman, commander of the Iraq-based Task Force Three Medical Command. The Army Medical Department Center and School conducted the review, which included representatives from major Army commands, divisions and brigade combat team surgeons.

The findings point out deficiencies in what is otherwise a vast improvement in battlefield medicine in the past 15 years. The advances, together with a system of medevac helicopters that can transport a wounded soldier from the battlefield to a field hospital in an hour or less, have boosted the survival rate of Iraq casualties to nearly 95 percent.

Still, the briefings portray a combat medicine operation struggling under inadequate and poor training. For example, the briefings describe combat medics who are poorly trained to perform emergency surgical airways when working in the field. Performing airway procedures is a key component of emergency medicine, which includes insuring that a patient can breathe and stopping a patient’s bleeding.

Government Executive, which broke the story, sent written questions to the Army regarding the specifics of the briefings. The Army’s response was a typical Catch-22:

Army headquarters did not respond by the time this article was posted. Cynthia Vaughn, head of public affairs at the Army Medical Department, declined to respond because she said the briefings were marked “For Official Use Only” and “are not intended for public release, and it would be inappropriate for us to respond to questions relating specifically to this document.”

So let’s be clear, since the materials were not intended for public release, the Army won’t comment on them, even though the materials now have been released, as of publication of this article. Sounds like a new version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only it’s now “You Can Ask Till You’re Blue in the Face, but We Won’t Tell.”

Although the survival rate of casualties is about 95 percent, the kinds of wounds inflicted in Iraq are typically more serious than in previous conflicts. And as improvised explosive devices get ever more powerful, the wounds they cause require faster, better critical care. We have just finished what has been the bloodiest month of 2007, with 127 Americans and two Britons killed in May. The total of American casualties has now exceeded 25,000 since the war began.

And it looks like it will get worse before it gets better. Even George Bush has admitted that his so-called surge will likely produce more U.S. casualties.

“We’re going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months. We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties,” Bush said at a press briefing in the Rose Garden in late May. “It could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August.”

And just when the troops will need it most, it appears that their medical support won’t be as good as it should be. Typical. Just like the administration sent them into Iraq without body armor or armored Humvees, so it now is surging them with insufficient medical supplies, personnel and facilities.

Heckuva job, Bushie!

Cindy Sheehan’s Parting Shot

Trish

Almost from the beginning, I had mixed feelings about Cindy Sheehan. I say “almost” because back at the very beginning, before I read anything she said or wrote and only heard there was a mother of a fallen soldier protesting the Iraq Occupation, I thought, “Wow, that’s wonderful.”

What Sheehan said or did never moved me precisely because of the way she said and did it.

But when I got more exposure to the actual person — through the press of course — I had my doubts. I felt I had met Cindy, and one-issue crusaders like her were the reason I got out of party politics. I found it much more fulfilling to work with individual candidates because at every party meeting, there was a Cindy or two who caused a complete and utter logjam with their inability to see shades of gray or look on compromise solutions as anything but defeat. Everything was a zero sum game to them.

I think all of our hearts go out to Sheehan for the loss of her son and for her determination not to back down. But admiration and liking are two different things. She’s a hard person to like.

Take, for example, her pity party today in which she both announced she’s quitting her protest of the Occupation and lashed out at every single American except herself.

I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

That’s the kind of stuff, bordering on codependence, that made me tune Cindy out.

On the other hand, she’s right about a few things.

Casey died for a country that cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months…

Good-bye America… you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

Of course we’ll manage to go forth without Sheehan and I’m not trying to be snippy about that, only stating a fact. In the end, I feel the same way about her as I did almost at the beginning. What she said or did never moved me precisely because of the way she said and did it.