Letters to the Editor
-
Even SECDEF Gates has to bow to God Betrayus
This AP story just filed says that Gates wants to reduce troops to 100,000 by the end of next year but he has to wait for the March Betrayus report. Admiral Fallon we need you. For the sake of your soul, please walk the plank and stop this betrayal and needless deaths. Expose this charlatan, rather these charlatans.
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 100,000 or so by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts President Bush has approved.
Stressing that he was expressing his hope, not an administration plan, Gates said it was possible conditions in Iraq could improve enough to merit much deeper troop cuts than are currently scheduled for 2008.
Asked at a news conference whether he was referring to going from today's level of about 169,000 to about 100,000 U.S. troops by the end of next year, Gates replied, "That would be the math."
Bush announced Thursday that he had approved a plan recommended by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to reduce from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by July next year. Gates said it was too early for Petraeus or others to forecast with confidence any additional cuts.
Petraeus said he plans to make a further assessment and recommendations next March.
"My hope is that when he does his assessment in March that General Petraeus will be able to say that he thinks that the pace of the drawdowns can continue at the same rate in the second half of the year as in the first half of the year," Gates said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq
-
The Next Big Meme (after 1/20/09):
"'Our Great Nation was stabbed in the back by the defeatist Democrats, who snatched defeat and surrender from the jaws of a Glorious Victory in Iraq.'"
Such too is Paul Krugman's opinion and I think it's on target.
Chances are the GOP insiders have already written off next year's election--even without Iraq the economy is likely to sink the Republicans--and are starting to think beyond 2008.
After Bush flips the Iraq booger onto the Democratic Administration, we'll start hearing the Next Big Meme from the Rightie Noise Machine, at an ear-splitting decibel level.
So how should a Democratic White House respond? Basically by changing the subject in some dramatic fashion. And the surest way to do that is to...Get Bin Laden. That should be the absolute topmost priority from the moment the Democrats take over.
It should be evident by now that Bush & Co. have been giving OBL a free pass in order to continue milking 9/11 for votes. So it follows that nailing that shithead ought to be first on any Things To Do list, apart from the political benefits involved.
As for the political benefits, they are obvious. A Democratic Administration that gets Bin Laden could not only get us out of Iraq without political pain, but would also permanently erase the image of the Democrats as "weak on defense".
If I were HRC, Derek, John, Bill, or whoever I would start working on this right now.
-
I have a further prediction...
After Bush flips the Iraq booger onto the Democratic Administration, we'll start hearing the Next Big Meme from the Rightie Noise Machine, at an ear-splitting decibel level.
-- Democritus
GWB will directly criticize the sitting President if he/she is from the Democratic party. This will break another tradition, but the GOP does not give a flip about those if they can gain partisan advantage (Like not wearing a military uniform, broken by Commander Codpiece in the "Mission Accomplished" Photo-Op. Note: I hope Tweety does see this post or he will have to take a cold shower). GOPTV will use some excuse like: "Well the way this war is conducted affects Dumbya's legacy, so ...blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit."
-
David Petraeus 2012!!!11!11!!one!!1!11eleven1!!11!
"'Our Great Nation was stabbed in the back by the defeatist Democrats, who snatched defeat and surrender from the jaws of a Glorious Victory in Iraq.'"
Someone call David Petraeus, I think we may have found his 2012 campaign slogan.
I almost hope that all that crap about the Mayan Calendar is correct...
-
A pull-back based on "success" in Iraq? Why not call for draft to support Iraq "success"?
One could conclude G.W.Bush surely holds much conviction that he was/is right on/about Iraq. With such a strong conviction about Americans being in Iraq for a long time to come G.W.Bush could/should have called for a new national military draft to begin within 60 days.
Surely with his unending,never faltering confidence in the quality of his decision to invade/occupy Iraq this is where he should now be. Need more Americans for Iraq Occupation? A near broken American military troop supply? I will call for a new national military draft. Surely the American people will follow me on this and by next summer 2008 there will be another 300,000 to 400,000 available new and fully prepared for Iraq duty(Iran duty as well?) American troops.
He did not. And in not doing so underlined as fully as ever just how unfounded his invasion/occupation of Iraq was back there in early 2003 or has remained up to mid 2007.
Bush/Cheney will not risk any core politics/bases of support on this war/occupation in Iraq. This is the deeper Big Lie in this Bush/Cheney American Iraq Invasion/TakeOver. No war draft,no war tax loads imposed on all Americans.They will attack others wth phoney "support the troops" BS but will not actually take the real political risks and responsibilities in hand for the war they so very much wanted to start and now desire to force/prolong outwards beyond Jan.2009.
Bush/Cheney want to/can warmonger and socialize the costs of ME oil control(while western oil continues to rack up record oil profits) yet still resist/prevent any "unjust" revisions or remakes of how those record profits are taxed or linked to who(American citizens/taxpayers) is in ME today to the tune of several hundred billion $$$ and the lives of nearly 4,000 American soldiers.The costs socialized/profits privatized game rule fully at play here.
A Bush/Cheney war brought ME Hellworld the Iraqis are now in where death,suffering and the choice of becoming refugees has become as common for many Iraqis as how we Americans expect the mail to show up each day.
G.W.Bush evidently does not have the courage to back up what he wants(has wanted since 2002) in Iraq with any request for a new national military draft. What? Too politically risky? Since when did a big risk stop this American President?
Should WashDC continue on with this charade of six month "Whats my line?" ploys and gambits surely G.W.Bush will get to late Jan.2009 without ever having to preside over any admission of defeat or retreat. He will have his "success".
After last Nov.2006 and gaining majority status in Congress the DC DEMS seem ever so easily persuaded to give him and Dick Cheney all the cover they need for Iraq or the now often "more war" talk this Bush WH regime orbits around on/with Iran.
The DC DEMS seem to have/offer few profiles in courage as well.
Two worthwhile reads are now available at zmag.org Znet site.
One is written by Tom Englehardt and is complementary to GG's thoughts and viewpoints about endless,meaningless blather from WashDC. It is titled 'Imperial Autism'.
The other is written by Stephen Lendman and is titled 'Story Never Told'.
Both of these found under September 14,2007 at Znet site.
They are both long reads but worthy of the time taken doing so.