Jokes

Just watching the President give a speech on al-Qaeda in Iraq. He is trying to make his case that al-Qaeda are the only people fighting the U.S. in Iraq, and that AQI is an all foreign group. Bush is doing this by naming the 2 foreign leaders of the group, not mentioning the absolute fact that it is made up almost entirely of Iraqis and is aided and abetted by Iraqi nationals.

The problem with Bush right now is number one he has no credibility when discussing Iraq, intelligence, or just about anything. Fours years of making progress in Iraq lends to this credibility problem for the President. Most people have pretty much tune hime out on matters of Iraq.

He is starting to sound delusional, in my opinion. Does he really think AQI can take over and rule Iraq? Does he really think the Iraqis would be dominated by a foreign entity? Has Mr. Bush missed the last 5 years in Iraq? Iraqis dont like foreigners on there soil occupying them.

Mr Bush, is it AQI who cannot keep the electricity on in Baghdad? Is it AQI who cannot pump even prewar levels of Oil? Is it AQI who will not allow former low level Baathists into society, instead of fueling the insurgency with well trained, motivated soldiers? Is it AQI who cannot provide clean drining water for Baghdad? Is it AQI who is providing the Shiites insurgency with the EFP, the most deadly roadside bomb that can penetrate the main battle tank of the US, the Abrahms tank. Is AQI walling off neighborhoods to separate sects so they wont drill hole eachother to death? Who is doing these things Mr Bush? Its not AQI.

He looks so beleaguered, like a manager for a baseball team that is 20 games out of first. He makes no mention of Sunni, Shiite, civil war. This is the leadership we get? God Help us all.

Oh, FOX "News" is already back to Linsday Lohan.

Joke of the Day

Bob Schieffier on Barry Bonds

Ya, but its a dry heat

Funny clip from the Daily Show about the heat in Baghdad.

Reporter Murdered in Baghdad

We often hear how difficult it is for Western reporters to move freely about Iraq in order to provide their readers with the best picture of what is going on in the war, and as a result all Western news outlets rely upon legions of Iraqi reporters who can move more freely, while acting as interpreters, guides and drivers.

Well, one of these reporters who worked for the New York Times was murdered in Baghdad the other day, his name was Khalid Hassan, he was 23 and the sole bread winner for a large family. If anyone is interested in donating to the fund to help his family out, this is how you do it.

Email

foreign@nytimes.com

subject: fund for Khalid Hassan’s family

Please click on title to be redirected to an article about Khalid Hassan by John F Burns of the New York Times

Joke of the Day

Support for the War, Young America, Victory in Iraq

The History Boys

The great writer/journalist David Halberstam wrote an excellent article about President Bush and his delusionary historical comparisons.

This was his last piece. Please click on title to be followed to the Vanity Fair piece

The Blame Game

Just watched Senator Mccain on CSPAN speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the War in Iraq, and he was making a good point that if the U.S. pulls back to the big bases, Iraq will look like it did back in 2006, with 3000 Iraqi civillians dying every month.

In doing this he referred to the failed strategy of the previous 3 1/2 years as the "Rumsfeld-Casey" plan, referring to the former Secretary of Defense and the former top General for Iraq who over saw the war plans for most of the war up until early 2007.

This was a thunderbolt statement for me, I was blown away when I heard this. Here we have, for the first time, someone high in the Government blaming the military for the failures in Iraq. And McCain to boot. He of the Hanoi Hilton, the infamous POW prison during the Viet Nam War.

I dont know how else one can interpret that statement. He just blamed the top military commanders for the debacle that is Iraq, while of course shielding the politicians from any blame. Mr. McCain ofcourse being a member of the rubber stamp party for Mr. Bush. But McCain says he was opposed to this strategy the whole time. Well John, why didnt you speak up? Why not call for some committee meetings and get to the bottom of what is going on?

Now, after all the deaths, all the bombings, all the IED's, the American people demand real progress, you find your voice? And with that voice, you blame the Generals? Maybe you should have brought a mirror to the floor of the Senate instead of a map of Iraq.

Good NYT article about Iraqi Legislature

Amid the constant car bombings, suicide vest bombings, assassinations, destruction of infrastructure, there is little reporting about the legislature in Iraq. I found this to be one of the most concise portrayals of the tribulations of the Iraqi Council of Representatives.

One telling fact is I learned is that the Council rarely has a quorum, meaning even if there is legislation to be voted on, in cannot by virture of parliamentary regulations.

Check out the article

Joke of the Day

Same Old Tune

The Bush Administration has been employing new language to support its policies in Iraq by stating al-Qaeda is the main obstacle to peace and stability in Iraq, rather than the sectarian wars dividing the country. Thus, based on following the Bush Administration the past four years of the War in Iraq, I believe he has no plans of a significant draw down of U.S. combat forces during the remainder of his presidency.

It seems apparent to me in all the public statements I have heard from U.S. officials concerning the sectarian problems is that they have resigned themselves to the Iraqis figuring that problem out amongst themselves, in their own way, in their own time, on there own terms. We rarely hear from Mr. Bush or General Petraeus about the Mahdi Militia, or the Badr Brigades. This is from the fact the militias have gone to ground for the most part, as well as reports the U.S. is easing off some of the more moderate militias in order to bring them in the political fold.

This is a smart strategy. Talk constantly about terrorists and extremists while ignoring the sectarian bloodshed, the sectarian bloodshed that until several months ago was seen by most Generals in Iraq as the number one enemy. Remember when the militias were enemy number one to the U.S. military? This is not to say al-Qaeda is not, and has not, been one of the main instigators of the most horrific suicide bomb attacks. But since al-Qaeda is not part of the Iraqi Government, while Sadr and Hakim and the myriad of political parties with accompanied militias are, it appears the U.S. has changed its tone in speech and deeds, in the hopes of giving an appearance of peace between the warring factions. This is merely a stalling tactic to buy time, in my opinion.

The “surge” was advertised as necessary to secure Baghdad so the political and sectarian (who can tell the difference?) parties can get some breathing space and come to reconciliation on laws for oil sharing and de-Baathification, that is the returning of many Sunnis who worked for Saddam Hussein, which is the least likely to pass given it means the Shiite cede some control to the Sunnis.

But now, all we hear from Bush and the Generals is that the only enemy is al-Qaeda, when it has been widely reported for most of the war that it is the militias, both Sunni and Shiite, that are killing most of the U.S. soldiers. Indeed, the Generals and politicians alike have been openly revealing the training and equipping by Iran to Iraqi Shiite militias with the most lethal of weapons killing Americans, the explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, which can disable the M1-A1 Abrams tank, the main battle tank for the U.S. military.

The undeniable fact is that the majority of U.S. deaths in Iraq are from driving around and getting blown up. These people that are dying are not even getting a chance to fight, as they are dying sitting down inside an armored vehicle. Does this make any sense? That’s what pisses me off the most about this stupid war. And the vast majority of these bombs are made, planted, observed, detonated, by Iraqis. And what further pisses me off is that the President and Generals never, ever talk about that. Its al-Qaeda this, extremists that, never mentioning the militias planting these bombs just happen to represent the largest block of parliamentarians in the Council of Representatives.

Now the military has apparently focused its main thrust upon finding and destroying the bomb making factories in what the military refers to as the Baghdad “belts,” while attempting to keeping some calm in the sectarian wars long enough to make it appear as if calm and peace has descended upon Baghdad, possibly setting up for large withdrawals of U.S. combat troops.

Yet my gut instinct after observing this President on this issue, the War in Iraq, it is my opinion that the shift in rhetoric and tactics is being done to set up for a long term presence in Iraq, or as long as Mr. Bush is on power. If the main enemy is al-Qaeda, while appearing as if the sectarian bloodletting has abated, he can justify keeping combat forces in Iraq, albeit at smaller numbers.

Despite the recent defection of key Senators such as Richard Lugar, Rep Indiana, and the former Foreign Relation Committee Chair, as well as Pete Dominici of New Mexico, also a long standing Republican, on the strategy and policies of the Bush Administration when it comes to Iraq, there will not be a cut off of funding or precipitous withdrawal. It seems apparent these Republicans would prefer not to have a confrontation with either the Democrats, or the President, when it come to the funding of the troops. These Republicans would like to see the Americans stop being the police force for Iraq, constantly patrolling the streets only to be blown up, while stating they have no confidence in the current Iraqi Prime Minister, his government or the Iraqi security forces.

But recent comments by Senator John Warner, one of the most respected senators and a former Secretary of the Navy during the Viet Nam War, about his regrets on being silent when surge after surge of American forces were sent to Viet Nam without sound policy to back them up, almost as if he wants to make up for past failures when he might have spoken up, could signal the biggest tipping point for the GOP and Iraq.

Just to reiterate the point, there has been no indication from any of the Republican Senators that they would support legislation for the cutting off of funds for troops in the field.

So it is this all al-Qaeda all the time talk is what concerns me there are plans for long-term U.S. combat commitments to Iraq. No matter who is the next President, I believe the Generals will advise some significant troop levels in Iraq to combat al-Qaeda. In this day and age, what President could ignore that type of advice?

Since in the world of politics, all actions and deeds are usually preceded by very well thought out words and statements, it is apparent Mr. Bush is falling back on a tried and worn tactic of blaming everything on al-Qaeda in hopes of returning to his more comfortable black and white world, where the “evil doers” are around every corner.

Gravy Train

President Bush commuted the sentence of the former chief of staff for the Vice President, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on the basis that the sentence was "excessive."

This administration continues to put its foot in its mouth when it is entirely unnecessary, just like with the fired US Attorneys. In that case, all they had to do was fire them and not give any reason, instead they said it was for performance, when it was apparently political.

In the Libby case, one would think the lawyers on Mr. Bush's staff would know the sentence was within the Federal sentencing guidelines, and that the majority of perjurers and obstruction of justice criminals go to jail. So why not just pardon him outright and simply say it is the right of the President to do this?

I was also wondering, given the reason the President cited for commuting felon Libby of this prison sentence, how deeply Mr. Bush studied the Federal sentencing guidelines and how many similar cases he researched in order to get an understanding just what is a fair sentence? I noticed he cited no legal precedent for his actions. I would bet there are hundreds of people languishing in prison with similar sentences for similar crimes who would love the same preferential, extra judicial treatment Mr Bush accorded Mr Libby.

The aspect that troubles me the most, is that for the past 16 years, the America people will have had the past two Presidents setting an example that it is acceptable to lie under oath. Isnt that remarkably sad? That some lies are ok, or that lying is not ok, yet punishment for lying is also not acceptable.

Green Zone

To say I am frustrated by the policies in Iraq by the Bush Administration is an understatement. Since I have no confidence in the people that got the U.S. in this mess to get the U.S. out of this mess, I feel it important to remind us of the early days of the occupation.

The differences between then and now are, well, striking to say the least. It is surreal.

Please click on title for a clip from a good book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City"

Colbert at the White House

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Good listen! He sticks it to everyone!

Please click on title for audio