Only 10% in US see war getting better...

No chit!

The Toll of War

Bush full of 'red-hot baloney' on Iran

I got this in a bulletin from a friend of mine on MySpace. It's by Ralph Nader.

On many occasions, President George W. Bush has lectured the American people that "amidst all this violence and bloodshed" in Iraq, "is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the security of our country.

Well then, why don't his daughters, 25 year olds Barbara and Jenna join the armed services and share in the sacrifice? Or is the sacrifice only to be borne overwhelmingly by lower-income whites, Hispanics and African-Americans who comprise the bulk of the casualties?

Mr. Bush is constantly speechifying to the American people, and increasingly failing to secure their support. Nearly 70 percent of Americans want out of Iraq and believe it was not worth the price. Americans may be wondering why neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor the neocons, who fabricated the causes for invading Iraq, nor the corporate bosses raking in war profits - why neither they nor their families are showing any signs of sacrifice?

By contrast, across the Atlantic Ocean in England, the British Defense Ministry announced last month that "His Royal Highness Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq later this year." Harry, age 22, is a second lieutenant who insists on going to Iraq with the soldiers under his command.

"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst (the military academy), and then sit on my . . .back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he told a television interviewer.

It is not as if Prince Harry is a stern, militant young fellow. /The New York Times/ called him "something of a playboy prince," who frequents "London's more exclusive nightclubs."

Jenna and Barbara like to go out on the town as well. /The Washington Post/ reported in early January that the twins went out "with a well-heeled entourage - crushed velvet sport coats for the men, trendy leggings, silk dresses and platform heels for the women," before Barbara heads back "to New York and her job at the Cooper-Hewitt museum" and Jenna returns "to her UNICEF gig in Central America."

The old nineteen sixties phrase, "if you're not part of the risk, you won't be part of the solution" applies to the Bush family. It's even worse. Some of Bush's relatives are involved in the war business, making money from their participation in companies and firms thriving off Defense Department contracts. (See Democracyrising.us)

Himself an adroit avoider of the Vietnam era draft, using his connections to enlist in the Texas Air National Guard that was not slated to embark for southeast Asia, George W. Bush finds solace in saying that he is "in awe of the men and women who sacrifice for the freedom of the United States of America, who volunteer to confront our adversaries abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

With such an awe-inspiring mission in Iraq to which he and Cheney have tied our country, its soldiers and its strained budget of billions of dollars, one might imagine George and Laura having a fireside chat in the White House with their able and spirited daughters about joining this noble Iraq mission in uniform.

Imagine further what Privates Jenna and Barbara would have to tell a President known for his traits of not listening and not admitting any mistakes (note the bungling Iraq occupation, the post-Katrina debacles and the recent Walter Reed deprivations which are never the fault of this no-fault Commander in Chief).

Let's envision the twins back on leave as medics from their first deployment to Baghdad sitting with father in the family quarters upstairs in the White House.

Jenna - "Daddy, you must listen to us and not ignore what we want to say, as you have disregarded our e-mails. Most of our soldiers in Iraq have lost faith and want the U.S. out of there. If you don't believe me, look at this year old Zogby poll reporting 72 percent of the soldiers want the U.S. out in six months to a year. And things are much worse now."

Barbara - "Daddy, you're spending $12 million an hour in Iraq and the soldiers are still short of body armor, armored vehicles and communications equipment. Still! Four years after the war started. Much of their equipment needs repair or replacement and there is no money. One of your Congressional critics reacting to the Department of Defense's Inspector General report of January 2007 said: "If our troops aren't the priority, who is? Halliburton, Blackwater, other corporate chums of the President?"

The President - "Reports, polls, what nonsense; what are your soldier friends fighting courageously over there against those hit and run cowards telling you?"

Barbara - "Some were too ripped up in the hospitals to tell us, but we knew they were torn apart by IEDs in their unprotected vehicles. We can tell you other horrible eye-witness stories about undertrained and underequipped national guardsmen and reservists. It won't inspire you, but we can tell you, if you wish. We're on the receiving end of the battered men and women who come to us on stretchers."

The President - "Don't bother, Barbara, Jenna, it all keeps me and Laura up at night, worrying so about you. I hear you. I hear you."

Just the latest on the Iran situation

:ph43r: :no:

just to pwut some leviety into the situation

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:ph43r:

* Gives panda an iSee stare. *

that is becwause iCute!

<mav> who knew that an inanimate stuffed object could have so much fun on the internet... </mav>

An interesting perspective

Iraq Blogs, etc

He didn't even serve well in the piddly pseudomilitary service his dad bought for him. He doesn't really know the sacrifices people and their families make, except for their value in marketing this war.

But rich men'd wars are always fought by the poor. Nothing new here.

BTW - I love when people understand that supporting the troops does not necessarily mean supporting the war, and supporting the war does not necessarily mean supporting the troops.

I hate it when certain politicians say that once a nation has decided to go war, that there should be no dissenting opinions from that point on. Like Tom Delay.

I also sense that Bush and his gang keep repeating the fact that 'they' have a right to express their opinion. They as in those who either oppose the president's strategy for Iraq or opposed the war entirely.

I'm curious as to why this needs to be repeated so often. Particularly in a country that happens to be the worlds oldest uninterrupted democracy. Freedom of speech should be taken for granted and not heralded as something that the president seems to be allowing at his pleasure.

It appears to me that the Republican Party has largely become a party with authoritarian and unmistakably jingoist tendencies.

Did you happen to see the cover of Time magazine this week?

Photo of Reagan "crying." Inside, the credits tell us the photo was taken by one person and the tears done by someone else. :rolleyes: Where did the Republicans go wrong??? Bah... whatever.

Sen. John McCain is revving up the nostalgia tour.

Insider: Missteps Soured Iraqis on U.S.

Complete withdrawl from Iraq should be the only acceptable course of action, before we do more damage to everyone involved in our obsession with venture capitalism.

And you think that a complete withdrawal of the only creditable security force in the country wouldn't be damaging?

EDITED: Double negative reasons.

The U.S. Army is not a credible security force. The U.S. Army is just that, an army, not an occupation force. Not to mention how much Muslims love to be controlled by non-Muslims.

It's the closest thing to a creditable force, even if you argue about the particulars of their qualifications. Also, Muslims seem to hate being controlled by other Muslims, and in fact it seems to be inter-Muslim violence that is causing the lion's share of deaths.

So who do you think will take over policing in the American vacuum? The corrupt and unmotivated Iraqi army? The under trained and equipped Iraqi police? Local militias that don't really understand restraint and will be fuel for the predictable civil war? Pardon me if I framed the question in a somewhat biased fashion.

It is not just a "prediction," but an already exisitng civil war.

I agree that the U.S. should get out. What the timeframe looks like, I can't guess, but an endgame *must* be on the table now.

Let's not split hairs over terminology. Civil war isn't just a one-zero proposition, there are degrees. Few people would disagree that the October Revolution is a different kind of beast than the Tamil/Sri Lanka civil war. And more to the point: I think that the US army is certainly quelling at least some of the internal strife, and so swiftly yanking US force out will change the nature of the conflict-- almost certainly for the worse, which is what I was getting at.

I'm not saying that the US should maintain a permanent force there, but calling for a complete withdrawal at this moment seems horribly premature.

Agreed on pulling out.



It's been a civil war since before we were there, by any definition. It is internal strife with well-known factions, and the only thing that kept it "below the radar" for some time was the godawful presence of Saddam's regime. The U.S. removed the leader of another country based on lies and ignorance. Are we willing to stay and be the oppressive force Saddam was to maintain a "peace" that we know will cost so many lives and the degradation of our own country's well-being?

War on terror reaches the poet.

House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq

I think everyone now sees Iraq as a baaad place to be. I was watching the news and there was a reporter in an AV doing a report on life outside the green zone. The convoy was attacked 3 times in 45 minutes. I thought when the war stared that 'hey it can't get worse the Saddam murdering thousands. But it is worse. Much worse. Hopefully the Afghanistan mission the Liberals got Canada into goes better.

Except: Blackwater :ph43r:


Thanks for that link, btw, Al.

I would imagine there have been quite a few instances where someone was mistaken for a terrorist for whatever reason, but it remains unadvertised.


^ 42 pip :rockon:

Man, I think that private armies are such a terrible idea. The power of the State will be eroded by stuff like this. They're a threat to the supposedly democratic control over force. No ideal, not even America, can sustain itself without care.

"Emboldened by the respect which it inspires, [tradition power] become careless as regards the general approval, which it believes that it cannot ever lose. By sloth, folly, or cruelty it gradually forces men to become skeptical of its claims to divine authority."
- Bertrand Russell

Death statistics revisited.

What they said last time.

Exit strategies only work if it means profit for the right kind of people.


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."-- Governor George W. Bush ®-TX, 1999 when Clinton was president.

Thinking about the Iraq War, I'm finding it difficult to think of a realistic plan of reconstruction that would have taken less than around 20 years, which is to say one generation. I think that it takes that long for new ideas to be believed. 20 years, and a lot more funding (specifically for education) and soldiers.

By the way, I think that the US administration's tune is changing over Iraq. They really seem to be reaching out to countries in the Middle East. This is I think a huge change from their previous "go it alone" attitude.

I think that Syria should be their focus. Ambassadors need to be exchanged.

Bush has gone on record saying that he didn't want to leave a mess behind for the following administration. He must feel that his entire legacy as president depends on what happens in Iraq until 2008. While this will probably force him to bring a much needed change in strategy, it may also force him into doing something, under pressure, irreversibly stupid and damaging to the perspective of civilizational peace. Like triggering a war with Iran.