But, but, but...

Draw down 4000 troops? Are those people crazy? Don't they realize that that will decrease the effectiveness of the surge by 25%? I mean, really, how are we expected to keep up the milestones we are collecting with that kind of reduction in our fighting force?

What's that? It won't be the actual people on the front lines which we are talking about withdrawing?

All clear. Carry on, then.

And the task is to convince him to "accept," to "agree" to, to be "willing to consider" a symbolic reduction in the number of troops at some point in the far off future provided a whole series of subjective conditions are met (to be determined at his sole discretion)

This strikes me a good time to remind everyone that there is a reason Congress (specifically the House of representatives) was the body empowered to declare war and raise Armies. The founders of course had a vision of War as a temporary condition and thought that a standing army was a danger to freedom. The problem is of course that coming out of WWII and into the Cold war, it suddenly became fashionable to think a war as a permanent state (hence the phrase 'Cold War' in the first place.)

I don't know the best way to counter this thinking but it is clearly freshly laid asphalt on the road to tyranny.

After reading Kevin Drum (at Political Animal) on Petraeus' brilliantly aiming his hearts-and-minds campaigns not at the Iraqis but at the American public, while Iraq burns all around him, I'm starting to believe that David Petraeus will very soon stand with Robert McNamara (another genius IQ unable to see past the end of a gun) and William Westmoreland as an unindicted war criminal.

Every word Petraeus speaks, every order he gives, every sentence he writes, every interview he grants in support of Smirky's and Darth's Endless War is a betrayal of his Service Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and his responsibility as a commander to his troops.

Yesterday morning I caught a few minutes of Matt Lauer interviewing Tiki Barber on the Today Show, and I was struck by how forceful he was. He confronted Tiki on a number of controversial subjects and pressed for answers when Tiki didn't quite address the questions.

And I thought, "Matt, where do you hide this side of yourself when you're interviewing conservative politicians or other representatives of the right?"

As always a great post. I just want to draw your attention to the word 'Drawdown' as emphsized by Jeffery Feldman on his blog "Frameshop."

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/

The administration is avoiding the word withdrawal which is the word normally used for withdrawing troops. As Jeffrey Feldman says, "For Bush 'Withdraw' bad, 'Drawdown' good.

The 'drawdown' was immediately picked up by the NYT article.

They go hand in hand with the administration.

Bin laden has returned.

and Hillary Clinton's scared.

Well, ya know what Senator? You and every, single democratic Representative and Senator should walk out in front of a news camera and say this one simple fact: "Bin Laden is back. He's in Afghanistan. Can The President explain why we haven't caught him yet? Can the Republican Party explain why we haven't caught him yet? Can the President respond to his statement in 2002 in which he said, "I'm not concerned about him." Can the President explain what "Dead or alive" means? Because I'm looking at a very alive, very free, Osama bin Laden 6 years after 9/11. 6 years after the President promised that he'd be hunted down. He's looking pretty alive and free to me. So it looks like the only guy we really brought freedom to since 9/11 has been bin Laden."

So as to claim success with the new level of recruitment. At the same time, they'll just increase everyone's tour a day or two to make up for it.

In the BBC interview, the interviewer asks Bolton whether the Iraqi people are in a worse condition now than when living under the dictatorship of Saddam. Bolton's weasley reply was something to the effect of "Well, that's your opinion", suggesting that he still clings to the fiction that the Iraqi's are indeed living under better conditions now.

Sadly, what struck me on this point is that Americans now live both under a dictatorship and in a failed state. That can be illustrated well by a quote from Bush in an AP story from Wednesday:

Speaking to reporters Wednesday during a trip to Australia, Bush restated his view that decisions about troop levels should be based on recommendations from military commanders. He noted that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would be delivering progress reports soon enough.

"Whether or not that's part of the policy I announce to the nation ... why don't we see what they say and then I'll let you know," Bush said.

Note that Bush leaves out any intervening steps between the delivery of the reports and his announcement of the policy. Where is the input from Congress? Where is the input from citizens? Despite the clear Constitutional requirement for Congress to be in charge of declaring and funding war, Bush makes it clear that the "policy" going forward will be his and his alone.

Sadly, if Congress and the American people allow this to happen, then what we have is a dictatorship in our failed state.

It's Jeremy Paxman not Jeremy Paxon.

The US is neither a dictatorship nor a failed state. Though it makes entertaining rhetoric to hear trust fund anarchists and idiot amateur communists think so.

Congo is a failed state

Zimbabwe is a failed state

North Korea is a dictatorship

Syria is a dictatorship

Lebanon is a failed state

Paxon rocked in that! I can't believe I actually saw an interview with a member of the Bush posse where the interviewer was as incredulous as I was and called the interviewee out on their statements. The whole line about rather live in a dictatorship then a failed state (I of course would rather live in neither). wow. I want media like that. thanks for that link.