The criminal Bush.

[fear_and_greed]

“Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me,” said Mr. Bush, who spoke from the White House residence library and called the situation in Iraq “unacceptable.” You should resign or be impeached then for gross incompetence.“It is clear that we need to change our strategy,” he said. But, but you boldly trumpeted mission accomplished years ago and as recently as OCT.25 said you’re winning. Quit lying.

“Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States”. And you think the current state of affairs is not a disaster? Idiot.

“America's commitment is not open-ended,” he said. “ Sooo, your final solution IS to cut and run after all.“Now is the time to act.... Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people.” Good thing you waited until more than 3000 US soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians are dead and heaped untold misery on their families before you decided to act. You are a war criminal.Stepping back now, as most Americans and U.S. Democrats are demanding, would force the Iraqi government to collapse( it isn’t?) and tear the country apart( oh yes, it is surely united at the moment isn’t it), said Mr. Bush, resulting in “mass killings on an unimaginable scale.” I imagine the families of the dozens of dead found on the streets at dawn every morning can.

“The most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy by advancing liberty across a troubled region.” I submit that your hateful ideology has killed more innocents, sowed more seeds of discontent towards America than ever before. After you’ve finished bankrupting America, will anyone care that they’ve advanced liberty to a country on the other side of the world?The President also has rejected the key idea of direct talks with Iran and Syria to help quell the violence that hit a two-year high in December. Instead, he called for increased operations against them. “These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” said Mr. Bush.“We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” Jesus fucking christ. You war mongering asshole . I suppose you’re going to invade two more countries now in the name of freedom, democracy and the American way. You are going to end up starting World War 3.

 

 

 

[Sbwood007]

FU

[sexual_chocolate]

ah yes, another articulate salvo from the intellectual heartland of the USA. way to make GW proud.

[Dechristo]

We are all whores in our own inimitable ways.

[foraker]

I sense you are using the word 'whore' in a demeaning way that perpetuates your anachronistic patriarchal modality.

[Dechristo]

no, more a take-off on the term "criminal bush", the connotation of male or female prostitution, and the ubiquity of compromise (or change) in human belief systems.

 

 

 

...and, I have no qualms with matriachal leadership.

 

 

A woman has guided me more than once.

[olyclimber]

FM

[Dechristo]

I like that Steely Dan tune, but, really, one of their more commercial efforts

[kevbone]

Bush sucks. What a looser.

[JayB]

Careful, careful. Word on the street is that the illuminati have had their eyes on one particular, wild-eyed socialist day-trader from the confines of their secret alcove for a while, and they'll have no compunction about fluoridating his water if he doesn't learn to keep his mouth shut.

[fear_and_greed]

Worlds most dangerous man is not wasting any time. Report: U.S. Troops Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html

 

 

[Jim]

The Real Disaster

The New York Times | Editorial

 

Thursday 11 January 2007

 

President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush's war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.

 

Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a "young democracy" in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.

 

Mr. Bush did acknowledge that some of his previous tactics had failed. But even then, the president sounded as if he were an accidental tourist in Iraq. He described the failure of last year's effort to pacify Baghdad as if the White House and the Pentagon bore no responsibility.

 

In any case, Mr. Bush's excuses were tragically inadequate. The nation needs an eyes-wide-open recognition that the only goal left is to get the U.S. military out of this civil war in a way that could minimize the slaughter of Iraqis and reduce the chances that the chaos Mr. Bush unleashed will engulf Iraq's neighbors.

 

What it certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush's open-ended threats to Iran and Syria.

 

Before Mr. Bush spoke, Americans knew he planned to send more troops to pacify lawless Baghdad. Mr. Bush's task was to justify that escalation by acknowledging that there was no military solution to this war and outlining the political mission that the military would be serving. We were waiting for him to detail the specific milestones that he would set for the Iraqis, set clear timelines for when they would be expected to meet them, and explain what he intended to do if they again failed.

 

Instead, he said he had warned the Iraqis that if they didn't come through, they would lose the faith of the American people. Has Mr. Bush really not noticed that the American people long ago lost faith in the Iraqi government - and in him as well? Americans know that this Iraqi government is captive to Shiite militias, with no interest in the unity, reconciliation and democracy that Mr. Bush says he wants.

 

Mr. Bush said yet again that he wanted the Iraqi government to step up to the task of providing its security, and that Iraq needed a law on the fair distribution of oil money. Iraq's government needs to do a lot more than that, starting with disarming the sectarian militias that are feeding the civil war and purging the police forces that too often are really death squads. It needs to offer amnesty to insurgents and militia fighters willing to put down their weapons. It needs to do those things immediately.

 

Iraq's Shiite-dominated government has heard this list before. But so long as Mr. Bush is willing to back that failed government indefinitely - enabling is the psychological term - Iraq's leaders will have no reason to move against the militias and more fairly share power with the Sunni minority.

 

Mr. Bush did announce his plan for 20,000 more troops, and the White House trumpeted a $1 billion contribution to reconstruction efforts. Congress will debate these as if they are the real issues. But they are not. Talk of a "surge" ignores the other 140,000 American troops trapped by a failed strategy.

 

We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause. We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive political solution utterly lacking in Mr. Bush's speech. This war has reached the point that merely prolonging it could make a bad ending even worse. Without a real plan to bring it to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offensives. There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

And here I thought you couldn't raid an embassy. Dubs must have just seen Casino Royale.

 

Start the egg timer for another US embassy bombing.

 

The Somalian airstrike was another nice touch. It's all about hearts and minds. "We think we got a top Qaeda suspect". Don't hold your breath for any confirmation, though.

Edited January 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

Is a consular office the same as an embassy?

 

---

 

With the situation clearly deteriorating and with so many generals and others saying this modest increase in troop levels is not likely to tip the scales, I wondered if GW was simply trying to be sure the whole thing doesn't completely fall apart until the next guy takes office. Who knows.

 

But over lunch I heard some wacko on the extreme liberal media propaganda tool NPR suggest that the reason for the "surge" may be to show our continuing commitment in the face of so many U.S. politicians' calls for withdrawal. The point, she said, was to reassure Talibani and the current Iraqi Congress that we are not going to pull the rug from under them, thereby encouraging them to go ahead with signing production sharing agreements with Western oil companies that may extend as far as thirty years into the future.

 

I don't know enough to consider this more than speculation, but does anybody else have any idea why we might be proposing the surge at this point? Clearly you can't believe Condi and company as to why they do anything.

[underworld]

from what i've heard - it sounded like 15 of the 20 thousand troops were going to baghdad and that would be doubling the troops there. if this is the case - it is more than a 'modest increase'

 

 

 

 

[Jens]

His speech last night didn't really propose anything we haven't tried already except more troops.

Man- this guy has no clue.

[Jim]

I don't know enough to consider this more than speculation, but does anybody else have any idea why we might be proposing the surge at this point?

 

Because their tack is in general is "If it doesn't work just do more of it". I think your first supisition was correct. They don't want to be the ones in office when the helicopters are taking off from atop buildings in the Green Zone.

 

I heard a good one from Condi today. She said that the diplomats in the Green Zone have been too cloistered and will get out more to see the "reality on the ground" in Iraq. Ha!! I bet that caused few resignations to be faxed in to the State Department. Hell, the upper military brass is to frightened to move out of the Emerald City w/o serious cover.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Jim

[mattp]

Here's another theory:

 

Bush has already decided he's going to bomb Iran.

He fears that the Mahdi army will attack US troops in Baghdad when he does so.

They figure 20,000 more guys will be enough to take on the Mahdi army.

 

Plausible?

[lI1|1!]

The Real Disaster

The New York Times | Editorial

 

[snip] In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one. [/snip]

 

 

likely

 

**********************************

 

i'm reminded of what many commentators said about saddam during the first gulf war. when people wondered why saddam didn't pull iraqi forces out of kuwait in the face of certain military defeat it was pointed out that while the iraqi army would lose, saddam would likely win politically by being a hard liner and consequently stay in power.

 

i think what's really going on here is not so much about US troops winning or losing it's about dubya and his political cronies winning and losing. oh and haliburton might lose some money if the current iraqi government gets overthrown.

 

 

 

[underworld]

make up your mind -

 

either bush is an idiot who can't spell, read, speak or tie his own shoes....

 

or he's got some master world plan... a plan that you seem to spend a good amount of time trying to anaylize

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

NPR just did a segment on the pending oil deal in Iraq. It's supposed to be the most lucrative for US oil companies in history. It seems to be a last gasp attempt for them to get the deal signed with a relatively friendly government before Iraq implodes or fractures. The deal has not been signed, but Malaki's government supports most of its terms.

 

It's interesting how W's troop escalation coincides with the oil industry's sprint for the finish.

[sexual_chocolate]

i don't see how a contractual obligation would necessarily survive a collapse of the government?

all pre-war contracts with france russia germany became null and void upon removal of hussein (a major reason, perhaps the biggest? for the US invasion?).

 

how could they write contracts that would survive another regime change? and really, what would the enforcement mechanism be, beyond current military occupation....

 

i don't see the logic of tying the upcoming oil deal to the current build-up.

 

i suppose maliki's signature would tie the hands of future gov's, since power will surely be with iranian oops i mean iraqi shiites?

[archenemy]

The Real Disaster

The New York Times | Editorial

 

[snip] In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one. [/snip]

 

 

likely

 

**********************************

I see snippets of efforts to shoehorn in Jeb Bush into some power position. It wouldn't be good to leave a mess for your bro...

[hopper_62]

hey GW, though i don't agree with anything you have to say or have done. take a bit of advice and at least have the guts to deliver a good fucking speech.

 

(hollywood version - the original is much better)

“Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

Now, an Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.

We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor bastards we’re going up against. By God, I do. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.

Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose.

There’s one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home. And you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what did you do in the great World War II, you won’t have to say, "Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

Alright now, you sons-of-bitches, you know how I feel. Oh, and I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle – anytime, anywhere.

That’s all.”

 

[joblo7]

 

**********************************

I see snippets of efforts to shoehorn in Jeb Bush into some power position. It wouldn't be good to leave a mess for your bro...

 

thats all we need , another bushwacker!