War is peace kata Bush

Update: Bush did speak to the troops at Camp Victory. He told them what a wonderful war this was and how 25 million people were now free, and Saddam was a really bad guy, and everyone went hoo haa, USA, USA!

George W. Bush, the worst president ever, has tripped over to Iraq to say "farewell" to the troops.

Oops, not exactly. It seems that Bush didn't see any "troops." Nope. What happened was the Iraqi poohbahs rolled out the red carpet and then ensconced themselves with the Smirking Chimp for two hours "at an ornate, marble-floored palace along the shores of the Tigris River."

Smart. No need to get all hot and sweaty out where the troops are. And, you never know, the troops might cause bodily harm to to el presidente. As it is, someone did throw shoes at him!


So, Bush and the Iraqi main men met and talked. They signed the security agreement that says the U.S. will depart by the end of 2011. Everybody prattled on about what great friends they are.

And George, speaking for himself and his blood-thirsty neocons said, once again: WAR IS PEACE!

The war has been hard, said da Bush, but it was necessary so the Iraqis could have peace. Oh, yeah, freedom. Ah, democracy, too. And the surge must be still working, 'cause violence is down.


4,209 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. There is still no electricity in many parts of the country. Water is scarce. People live in fear. One in six have fled their homes. In 2006, the "Factor by which an Iraqi ... was more likely to die than in the last year of the Saddam regime: 3.6. [The] factor by which the cause of death was more likely to be violence: 120."

Seventy-five percent of Baghdad residents have had a family member or friend killed since 2003. Twenty-five percent of Iraq war veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Iraq war has cost U.S. taxpayers almost $600 billion.

There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Oh, yeah, 55 people were killed in a suicide bombing in Kirkuk on Thursday.


War is Peace! Merry Xmas!

Peggy Noonan on how George Bush kept us safe

Not so long ago, Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal suggested that whatever faults George W. Bush may have, at least he kept America safe.

"...the one big thing he had to do after 9/11, the single thing he absolutely had to do, was keep it from happening again. And so far he has. ...

"We have not been attacked since 9/11. Someone--someones--did something right."


Noonan's comments are old news and, ultimately, what Noonan thinks is not appropos about anything, much less George W. Bush.

But people do read what she says, even though, in this case, she lost her way somewhere out in the proverbial left field.

As Blue Texan said, writing at Firedoglake, Yeah, Bush kept us "safe," "Unless you lived in New Orleans after Katrina. . . or were killed by anthrax. . . or were shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan."

Noonan neglects to mention that Bush and Company failed utterly to protect the country on 9/11/2001. And it wasn't because they had not been informed such attacks were imminent. As Blue Texan points out, "the 9/11 Commission concluded that 6 of the 10 major missed opportunities to prevent 9/11 occurred under Mr. Kept Us Safe's watch." Bush and Company were advised specifically in the summer of 2001 that bin Laden might use airplanes to attack the U.S., and they blew off the warnings!


However those facts work themselves out historically and however the characters involved are called to account for their perfidy, the pressing questions now are: What's the situation in 2008/2009? How "safe" are we?

George and the neocons continue to blather about how they brought "democracy" to Iraq and helped stabilize that country and got rid of the evil Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East is a much better place and isn't it wonderful!

Thus they try to soothe our anxieties by muttering platitudes as to how we're so much safer now than we were pre-9/11 and pre-war in Iraq.

The truth is the opposite.


Ron Suskind, in his book, The One Percent Doctrine, tells how, as American tanks rolled through Baghdad, Americans had identified an important al Qaeda operative, Yusef al-Ayeri. Not only was al-Ayeri "behind a Web site, al-Nida, that U.S. investigators had long felt carried some of the most specialized analysis and coded directives about al Qaeda's motives and plans,

"He was also the anonymous author of two extraordinary pieces of writing--short books, really, that had recently moved through cyberspace, about al-Qaeda's underlying strategies. The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula After the Fall of Baghdad, written as the United States prepared its attack, said that an American invasion of Iraq would be the best possible outcome for al Qaeda, stoking extremism throughout the Persian Gulf and South Asia, and achieving precisely the radicalizing quagmire that bin Laden had hoped would occur in Afghanistan.

"A second book, Crusader's War, outlined a tactical model for fighting the American forces in Iraq, including 'assassination and poisoning the enemy's food and drink,' remotely triggered explosives, suicide bombings, and lightning strike ambushes. It was the playbook."


The neocon dream began to fall apart soon after the invasion of Iraq. Bush and the neocons never considered seriously the possible negative consequences of their military exploits in the Middle East. While some of them, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld, had spent time in the Middle East, even cozying up to Saddam Hussein when it was to our advantage, they seemed to have been so blinded by ideology that they simply ignored the probable outgrowth of the seeds they planted, or they didn't care.

Then there are those who argue it was all about the oil, anyway. None of them gave a damn about democracy! None of them give a damn about the Middle East!

Whatever the motivation, the invasion of Iraq produced the reverse of what they had dreamed; it became their worse nightmare. It will, as historians write of this period, mark them as the creators of nightmares in which morning never comes!

While Saddam and bin Laden eyed each other from afar with undisguised hatred, the United States, under George W. Bush, proceeded to answer bin Laden's prayers.


Suskind puts it this way:

"One hundred fifty thousand U.S. troops in the center of the Arab world was a jihadist recruiting tool of almost unfathomable magnetism. Terrorist recruitment was on the rise, visibly and markedly, across the Arab world. CIA reports indicated that the madrassas in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were overflowing, as were contributions to radical clerics and their operations. Images flashed to millions each day by Al Jazeera of U.S. tanks in Baghdad and Tikrit, and the carnage that was now Iraq, were dissuading young Arab men--in Iraq and across the Gulf--from standing on the sidelines. They were joining the global fight against the 'crusader' Bush and his infidel army as the cause of their generation."

Bush had lied to the American people about Saddam's WMDs, his nuclear program, his threat to the United States, and his relationship to terrorists.

But now - again from Suskind, "there was, finally, a connection between Iraq and the broader 'war on terror.' It was a catalytic relationship, like gasoline on a fire."


Unfortunately for the U.S. and the Iraqis, it's not over yet. And Peggy Noonan, you were and are so very wrong!

In 2008, as Bush prepares to crawl back to Texas, leaving behind the smoking remains of what was once a powerful and prosperous civilization, we, the people of the United States, hunker down, knowing that we are more vulnerable, as a nation, than ever before.

For that we can only thank George W. Bush and his friends for whom failure is the name of the game.


Crooks and Liars has an excellent take on Noonan's article and Bush, pre-9/11, here.

The last one to die

President George W. Bush has resolutely refused to establish any kind of timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. John McCain has not only praised Mr. Bush for maintaining this position, but has used it as a test of character against Barack Obama. McCain has mocked Obama's desire for a withdrawal timeline, saying that Obama would rather be president than win a war.

Mr. Bush has changed his mind and evidently failed to consult with Mr. McCain.

According to a story by NPR, "American and Iraqi negotiators have reached a tentative agreement governing the use of American forces in Iraq over the next three years...

"The draft Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA as it's called ... hasn't been released to the public."

SOFA contains two items which appear to be sticking points for both sides - the U.S. and the Iraqis. One says that American personnel, military and civilian, who are "accused of committing serious crimes while off-duty and off-base can be tried in Iraqi courts."

The other sticking point is the timeline. "The draft calls for all American combat troops to be out of Iraq by 2012."


McCain, as Senator Obama has pointed out, was wrong about the Iraqi invasion from the beginning and he's wrong about what to do now.

The war in Iraq cannot be "won" because it is not a war, it is an occupation, and we are involved in fighting native insurgents, not to "win" anything, but to keep the peace until the politicians can get their heads together and figure out an ass-saving way to get out of the mess.

It appears the end may be in sight. And as the Iraqi situation begins to draw to a close, sadness washes across us for once again we are bludgeoned with the realization that it was all so unnecessary.

Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and in fact was a hated enemy of our real enemy -- the man who did perpetrate 9/11, Osama bin Laden. Saddam was not a nice man, but he was no threat to the United States, in spite of the rhetoric spewed across our land by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon desk "warriors."

2012. That's the proposed withdrawal date. That will be the actual date if SOFA is approved by the respective governments involved.

* * * *

The Associated Press reported today that "at least 4,185 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003."

Here are some other numbers:

Britain - 176
Italy - 33
Ukraine - 18
Poland - 21
Bulgaria - 13
Spain - 11
Denmark - 7
El Salvador - 5
Slovakia - 4
Latvia and Georgia - 3 each
Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand and Romania - 2 each
Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan and South Korea - 1 each.


While we credit these men and women for their commitment to their countries and to whatever ideals drove them to fight in Iraq, the terrible, horrifying, eternal fact is that each died in vain.

Not one single death was necessary! Not one! But how many more will die needlessly in the next four years?

Their blood drips from the hands of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Dick Rumsfeld and the neocons who cooked up this godawful disaster. Frankly, if there is a god, he's gonna get 'em, whether they believe in Jesus or not!


And I can guarantee that one of the questions most present in the minds of those still left in Iraq as the months and years slip by is simply this: "Will I be the last to die?"

McCain's Virginia connection

Jeffrey M. Frederick is the chairman of the Virginia Republican Party.

Glenn Greenwald, writing at Salon.com, tells what Karen Tumulty of Time heard "after being invited by the McCain campaign to observe its 'ground game' in Southern Virginia."

Tumulty wrote: "With so much at stake, and time running short, Frederick did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points - for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: 'Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon,' he said. 'That is scary.'"

Greenwald says that "After noting that this is 'not exactly true,' Tumulty described how that accusation was nonetheless 'enough to get the volunteers stoked':

"'And he won't salute the flag,' one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, 'We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born.' Actually we do: it's Hawaii."


Sam Stein at the Huffington Post says that Frederick's statement was read "on the set of a local Virginia news station."

McCain said he didn't have enough information to judge whether the remark was appropriate. ?

"I have to look at the context of this remarks," said McSame. "I have always repudiated any comments that have been made that were inappropriate about Senator Obama [that's a big lie!]. The fact is that William Ayers was a terrorist and a bomber and unrepentant. I don't care about that. But, Sen. Obama ought be [sic] candid and truthful about his relationship with Mr. Ayers..."

Unfortunately for the old man, his remarks were not coordinated with his campaign headquarters. While McCain didn't have enough information to condemn Mr. Frederick's statement, his own spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, did. She condemned the remarks as "not appropriate."

Gitcho said, "While Barack Obama is associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers, the McCain campaign disagrees with the comparison that Jeff Frederick made."

Are these people all freaking idiots?

Obama's connection to Ayers is tenuous at best and totally irrelevant to anything at this point. Ayers is now a respected member of his community and has redeemed himself. Perhaps he will sue the McCain campaign for damaging his reputation. I'll put in a good word for him.


The next bit, while not connected to McCain's Virginia stupidity, offers further insight into the failing mind of the Senator from Arizona.

Stein writes that the Spanish-language Univision published an interview it conducted with John McSame. In this interview, McSame says there is a direct link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

The interviewer asked McSame if he agreed with Obama who said that "the Iraq war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11."

McSame said, "No. We invaded a country that every intelligence agency said was developing weapons of mass destruction. Think of Saddam Hussein in power with oil at 100 dollars a barrel, and all that entails with his commitment which when after he was captured, he stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could. Now, Iraq--"

At that point the interviewer interrupted to say, "But he had nothing to do with 9/11."

McSame responded: "He had a lot to do with invading his neighbor Kuwait, and we had to go to war and fight there. He had a lot to do with using weapons of mass destruction, he used them previously, so there's no doubt about his commitment to get them."


There are a number of things we can say about McSame's comments:

One is that he's almost as incoherent as his running mate.

Secondly, he's dead wrong on several points: "every intelligence agency" did NOT say Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction; just the opposite.

Thirdly, the United States provided Hussein with WMD previously, in his war with Iran.

Fourthly, there is evidence that Hussein did not "invade" Kuwait, and that the invasion was staged by George H. W. Bush to justify his own invasion of Iraq to secure the oil fields there. And what the hell does that have to do with anything, especially 9/11. That was in 1991!

Fifthly, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The terrorist attacks were carried out by terrorists of al-Qaeda, most of whom came from our allied country, Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden hated Hussein with a passion, and considered him to be scum, and a threat to Islam. Hussein, in turn, hated bin Laden.

Does John McCain, the foreign policy "expert" not know this stuff?


Finally, two days ago, McCain got around to suggesting that the U.S. economy, which not long ago he praised as being very sound, was hurting his campaign efforts "a little bit."

The day before that, Saturday, the McCain campaign "leaked" to Politico that McSame would be setting "a bold new economic agenda" before the world on Monday (yesterday).

Sunday night, the McCain campaign said, no, McCain would not be offering any "bold new economic agenda" on Monday or on any other day.

"We do not have any immediate plans to announce any policy proposals outside of the proposals that John McCain has announced, and the certain proposals that would result as economic news continues to come our way," said spokesman Tucker Bounds. Blah, blah, blah.

Now, either John had no plan planned, or he had a plan that his advisers said was no good, or his campaign people tried to force him to put out a plan because the economy is about to sink their entire effort to put ol' John in the White House, or the McCain campaign doesn't have a clue about anything and are just flailing around wildly to get some attention.

Or, maybe he ran his plan past Palin and Palin panned his plan?

Osama and Bush - who's the "real" terrorist?

Consider this: On September 11, 2001, some 3,000 people - most of them American citizens - were murdered when a group of predominately Saudi Arabian terrorists flew airplanes into the Twin Towers.

Consider this: Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground for not only Osama bin Laden, largely believed the one responsible for this terrorist attack, but also for 15 of the 19 people involved, has been a close ally of the United States for many years in spite of the fact that it is an autocratic and despicable Islamic dictatorship under which the people enjoy few personal freedoms and brutal suppression reigns.

Consider this: In the months preceding the 9/11 attack, George W. Bush and his administration were given "intelligence" which advised them that such an attack was imminent. Such an attack would be "led" by Osama bin Laden. Such an attack would likely involve airplanes flying into buildings. All of these things were known to Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in the Bushit Administration in the summer of 2001! George W. didn't care. He ignored the intelligence. From Day One, the Bush Administration was focused on contriving reasons to attack Iraq.

Consider this: On the basis of a series of lies, all now well-documented, George W. Bush instigated a preemptive attack, in 2003, on a country that was NOT a threat to the United States in any way whatsoever.

Consider this: The attack became an invasion became an occupation. The Bushites, including John McCain, said the Americans would be welcomed by the Iraqis for destroying their country; they said it would be a short war; they said it could be done on the cheap, only $50-60 billion.

Consider this: The war has continued for five years, is costing $10 billion per month [in borrowed money], has cost nearly $800 billion since its inception, and no end is in sight. In fact, the war in Iraq has nearly bankrupted the United States.

Consider this: Everyone involved with the Iraq war was wrong and everything they said about the Iraqi invasion was wrong. Still, their lies continue today.

McCain and his sidechick, Palin, harp on the so-called "Surge" and how successful it was, but not once have either of them explained exactly what that means. They've never answered the question as to what made it "successful" -- and what "success" means in this situation.

The problem is that McCain and his sidechick, Palin, don't have a freaking clue about Iraq or the Surge or anything else in the Middle East. If the Surge was successful -- and that is still an open question -- it's success was due primarily to the fact that a large group of insurgents laid down their arms.

Consider this: George W. Bush, his administration, and his cronies in Congress, used the 9/11 attacks to create an attitude of fear in the American people ("The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming"). They lied to the American people about, not only the nature of the threat, but the source of the threat.

Because George and the neocons started the war to ensure access to the Iraqi oil fields, a purpose to which they could not admit, they spread lies about Saddam Hussein, about al Qaeda and about the terrorist "threat." Saddam, they said, had weapons of mass destruction, perhaps nuclear weapons, poised to attack the United States. Iraq, they said, was behind 9/11 (people still believe that one). Iraq was harboring terrorists, they said.

All of this was bullshit.

Consider this: The result of these lies and the incredible, unbelievable stupidity, as well as the unbridled greed of the Bushites and neocons has led to:

4,177 American dead in Iraq

30,795 Americans maimed in Iraq

96,289 Iraqis killed (according to Iraq Body Count)

1,273,378 Iraqis killed (according to justforeignpolicy.org)


Summary:

1) Osama bin Laden, noted and notorious terrorist, is directly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans which resulted from the attacks by his minions on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden should be captured and should stand trial for his evil ways and dastardly deeds.

2) George W. Bush and the leaders of his administration, notorious neocons and god-lovers, are directly responsible for the deaths of 4,177 Americans, the maiming of almost 31,000 Americans, the killing of some ONE MILLION Iraqis (many of them women and children), the destruction of the country of Iraq, and a raging and growing anti-American sentiment around the world.

3) George W. Bush lied and led the United States into an unnecessary, brutal and costly (in every way) war - these are indisputable facts with numerous historical documents of the highest caliber to back them up.

4) So who's the real "terrorist?"

Answer:

a) Osama bin Laden
b) George W. Bush
c) All of the above