Swagger is Back: Post-Zarqawi Iraq Creates Spin Opportunity for Republicans

-

Click here to read the “confidential messaging memo” from House Majority Leader John Boehner on all the good stuff that Republican Congressman should “tout” about America’s progress in Iraq.
I guess Texas swagger is back.
Boehner’s memo amplifies a “high-fear” drumbeat for the so-called war on terror and suggests that the death of Zarqawi, the completion of appointing Iraq’s senior cabinet ministers, and Bush’s personal meeting with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seal the deal for America achieving victory in its efforts there.
What Boehner doesn’t tell his flock is that Zarqawi’s team seems dedicated to worsening the violence and that Zarqawi’s activities in their entirety were a very small percentage of the overall insurgency in Iraq (some commanders in the field were even trying to get the $25 million bounty on Zarqawi reduced because he was becoming proportionally less of the exploding problems in Iraq). He didn’t say that Iraq’s Minister of Defense — only just appointed — has already threated to resign if America goes on a massive hunt and kill effort through the Al Anbar region of Western Iraq. He didn’t say that security in Iraq is still so bad that the meeting between Bush and al-Maliki was put on the Iraq Prime Minister’s schedule just five minutes before Bush’s arrival. That’s not a sign of a stable relationship.
Apparently, Boehner is going to push passage of House Resolution 861 tomorrow declaring the Iraq War as a smashing success and as synonymous with the overused and inappropriate metaphor, “war on terror”.
It’s a disturbing resolution that recognizes none of the setbacks that we are experiencing and again ratchets up the arrogance and hubris of America’s position in Iraq.
To get a flavor, sample the opening:

H. Res. 861
RESOLUTION

Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use
of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly elected President in that nation’s history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;

There’s more. Here’s the full link.
Neil Abercrombie is headlining an alternative resolution, H. Res. 543 — but the bottom line is that many American and Iraqi men and women are dying while our House members engage in silly gestures that are not only irrelevant to America’s strained military circumstances but also harmful to morale.
I will be discussing Republican and Democratic views on the Iraq War with other guests on Warren Olney’s KCRW show, To The Point, which can be heard live over the web between 2 and 3 p.m. today. I think it will replay in the DC area tonight on national public radio. My hunch is that I will be on around 2:15 p.m.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

46 comments on “Swagger is Back: Post-Zarqawi Iraq Creates Spin Opportunity for Republicans

  1. avaroo says:

    Oh come on, do you people SEROIUSLY think dems were anxious to vote against a bill praising our troops? There IS an election coming up.
    There was NEVER any chance that Bush was going to be impeached over Iraq, this vote didn’t innoculate against that, it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

    Reply

  2. Steve says:

    You can email President Bush, VP Cheney, Congressional Leaders & Rush Limbaugh from my eclectic homepage. Check it out here….
    http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8889

    Reply

  3. within says:

    The little Evil One has been inoculated from impeachment by Res. 861.
    I live in a filthy evil country.
    Satan Bless America!

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    I wish all the Dems had abstained and walked the hell out, rather than lend authenticity to that mock resolution.

    Reply

  5. Not a Liberal, if that's what you're thinking says:

    Here are the Dems voting yes on this measure:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll288.xml
    Barrow
    Bean
    Berman
    Berry
    Bishop
    Boren
    Boswell
    Boucher
    Cardoza
    Case
    Chandler
    Cooper
    Costa
    Costello
    Cramer
    Cuellar
    Davis (TN)
    Edwards
    Etheridge
    Gordon
    Gene Green
    Herseth
    Higgins
    Holden
    Kind
    Larsen (WA)
    Lipinski
    Lynch
    Marshall
    Matheson
    McCarthy
    Melancon
    Moore (KS)
    Peterson (MN)
    Ross
    Salazar
    Smith (WA)
    Snyder
    Spratt
    Taylor (MS)
    Thompson (MS)
    The three Republicans to vote NO:
    Paul (No surprise, I dare anybody to call this man unpatriotic)
    Leach
    Duncan
    The Dems who didn’t vote but were present (cowards):
    Boyd
    Miller (NC)
    Sherman
    Those not voting (why?):
    Bishop (NY)
    Cleaver
    Dingell
    Evans
    Gutierrez
    Kilpatrick (MI)
    Waxman (why?)
    Interestingly enough, Heather Wilson (who is in deep crap in NM) didn’t vote. Does this make her unpatriotic?
    Same applies to Jerry Lewis of California and Dan Burton.
    This is a bill for cowards. Cowards who can’t openly debate the ills of this war and those who care more about party ideals (the Republicans put us here) and winning elections than what is good for America.
    Sad day for America.

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, I see that 42 of the “democrats” voted “yea” on this resolution, and 9 abstained. I sincerely hope that if any of you have the time to research it, you will let this blog know EXACTLY who these scumbags were, so that when we are pretending our vote is being counted we can at least enjoy the fantasy that we acted to remove them from office.

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    Anyone that has been watching the so called “debate” on Iraq cannot possibly miss the purposeful and concerted effort that is being waged by the Republican party to LIE to the citizenry of the United States. These people are fuckin’ scum, (and such vulgarity really does not adequately describe these muderous traitors, they are in fact, FAR WORSE). Their repeated attempts to link Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11 is despicably dishonest, and perfectly illustrates what NOT to do if in fact you are actively “supporting our troops”. I HAVE NEVER SEEN such blatant pandering to untruths and propaganda, and every man, woman, and child in America should be ASHAMED of the conduct of our Congress. There is NO QUESTION they have lied, are lying, and will continue to lie. On numerous fronts we can PROVE these despicable cowards and traitors LIED this nation into war. The Downing Street Memo alone should have been enough to send these bastards to a federal prison. And their lies are deadly, costly, a blow to our national security, and prosecutable under the laws of our land.
    Kucinich had it right when he stood before this embarrassing SHAM of a debate. It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE that will settle this debate. There WILL be a day of reckoning for these pricks. The only questions are, how soon, and how many must die before it comes?
    But make no mistake, this shameless and pathetic charade that is being masqueraded as a “debate” before the American people is direct evidence of how far we have strayed from what we once proffessed to be. Only a fool can watch this dog and pony show without realizing the truth. Good God, these slimey inept bastards can’t even tell a LIE competently. This “debate” is a slap in the face to every American.
    Where the fuck is Phase Two, by the way? The American people were PROMISED it no later than October of LAST YEAR by that slimey lying piece of shit Roberts. Why aren’t our so called “representives” DEMANDING that it be produced as promised?
    And do these bastards REALLY expect us to believe that all the death and mayhem in Iraq is the result of the actions of The Bush fabricated boogie man “Al Qaeda”. Good God, it defies all logic to accept such a premise, they would have to be POURING INTO IRAQ by the droves. No, the mayhem in Iraq is A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THIS INCOMPETENT, DISHONEST, and TRAITOROUS ADMINISTRATION.
    Do you folks REALLY believe such incompetence is an accident? Do you REALLY believe that ANY administration could get it so horribly, so predictably, and so blatantly WRONG?
    I fear the chaos is by design, and these bastards have embarked upon a strategy of destabilization in the Middle East.
    God bless America???? Well, he better, because if he doesn’t, these lying bastards in Washington are out to destroy it.

    Reply

  8. Daniel DiRito says:

    Read an analysis on the dilemma faced by Democrats in crafting a consensus position and message on Iraq…here:
    http://www.thoughttheater.com

    Reply

  9. Kathleen says:

    On the subject of armchair warriors too chicken to fight themselves, sending other peoples’ children off to get killed so they can haul money to the bank, check out Raw Story today on on the Army lying about Cheney’s covert influence in getting BILLIONS in no bid contracts. Why am I not surprised??? Does that make him a Patriotic profiteer or just a plain old gluttonous cowardly profiteer? I should have invested in Barf bags back in 2000.
    POA: Since we so often agree, I think we’re already spiritually married.

    Reply

  10. thurlow gwang says:

    Putting it all together for you dim Amercian commentors.
    There is a Two Front War in the GWOT; one against terrorists at large outside the borders of your USA, and maliciously confounded with the debacle in Iraq; the other against those within your country who are not buying into the GWOT, fear, that is aimed at controlling of your worldview, your heart and mind. The two front war is the Right-wing, and their neo-conservatives vs. terrorists world-wide and those who aid and abet those terrorists at home by not being four square behind the worldview of the Right-wing.
    All of this “War” is being played to secure power and control the American government. The right- wing needs power for a very long time to change America back to how it was before the ’60s. The “War” is the vehicle to retain. The Left is as much the enemy as any terrorist or terrorist organization as far as the Right is concerned. In fact, the Left is probably considered a far greater threat to “America,” than any terrorist group. GWOT is a tool for winning your domestic “Culture War.” Winning the “Culture War” is the grand prize and power needs to be retained by the Right to win. The Left IS a terrorist organization in the eyes of the Right; the Left destroys the country from within. All right-wing strategy centers on the culture war.
    And as far as the masculine vs. feminine comment made above, cant’ you see how the Right is using Iraq and GWOT the pussify the Left, which ain’t hard to do because it’s basically true. Dominance and Submission, if you don’t like masculine vs. feminine categories, and I am talking here of the classical sense of these themes, not the post ’60s dream of the relationship between the sexes. The MAN game they’re playing on the Left is the old game. No use whining “leap into the new millenium.” The right ain’t playin’ New Age; it’s all old school with fixed gender roles that have been in existence forever until the ’60s. They are summoning natural biology. So, no matter how you rationalize their view of you, the Left, as womenfolk, in the pre-sixties sense, they are using this subtlety constantly in “Time of War!” the realm of “Real Men.” You’re going to have to smack them real hard and then smack them a couple more times before the shock of the first wears off if you really don’t want to be subjugated which is your natural state in their eyes. The “Culture War” is all about gender, making males men again, and females ladies, and pairing them to make all-American Donna Reid Show families.

    Reply

  11. Pissed Off American says:

    Really??? Does that mean they can have electricity more than three hours a day??? Or maybe have the sweet “opportunity” of knowing their kids are breathing a lifetime’s supply of D.U.??? Or maybe return to the pre-1991 quality of life they had, where women held equal posts as men, and they had the highest educational opportunities of most of the Middle Eastern countries??? Or gee, maybe they will get the “opportunity” of missing their precious museum artifacts and antiquities, that have been DESTROYED. Or hey, how about the opportunity to wear a burkha, or get beheaded because you have a western style haircut??? Yep, infrastructure destroyed, economy shattered, cultural history lost, Sharia law, and militias roaming the streets, now, by golly, THATS opportunity.

    Reply

  12. avaroo says:

    “Post-Zarqawi Iraq Creates Spin Opportunity for Republicans”
    let’s try to remember that post-Zarqawi Iraq creates opportunity the the Iraqi people most of all.

    Reply

  13. Pissed Off American says:

    REAL MEN????? What planet are you on? You mean those armchair warriors who are too chickenshit to go to fight themselves, but love to send other peoples’ children to kill and be killed so they can haul money to the bank? You bloodthirsty idiot. Go pound your Bible.
    Posted by Kathleen
    Kathleen, Carrol refused ny proposal … so …… uh ….. will YOU marry me????

    Reply

  14. Pissed Off American says:

    “karenk, We are at War, and we must be prepared to extinguish any possiblity of having to fight a two front war, one here and one abroad. An Oath of Allegiance would bring together citizens of patriotic like mind so that they could organized into neighborhood militias and monitor the activities of the disaffected to the American cause.”
    Fascist ass. Hitler murdered hundreds of thousands of jews, using ignorance such as yours as the murder weapon.

    Reply

  15. koreyel says:

    Clemons:
    “It’s a disturbing resolution that recognizes none
    of the setbacks that we are experiencing and again
    ratchets up the arrogance and hubris of America’s
    position in Iraq.”
    Steve, all that is okay.
    Sure, IRAQ IS LOST.
    That fact is apparent even to crash test dummies.
    That more treasure and troops must be thrown
    down the “Bush hole” to deny this fact is necessary.
    You’ve got to get with the zen of it all.
    (Halliburton stock helps too.)
    You see… sometimes the only way to learn a
    lesson, is to get your ass handed to you royally.
    Since Vietnam didn’t impart any moral sense…
    perhaps Iraq will do the trick.
    [Or perhaps not…says the zen master.]

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Well I promised I wouldn’t do this again but I can’t help myself..all the political trash yada,yada has made me crazy….
    BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND START OVER

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Well I promised I wouldn’t do this again but I can’t help myself..all the political trash yada,yada has made me crazy….
    BURN WASHINGTON TO THE GROUND AND START OVER

    Reply

  18. Not a Liberal, if that's what you're thinking says:

    I am all for a Feingold or Paul run for President. Both men, though very different in basic ideology (abortion rights, the legitimacy of the UN, foreign aid), do see eye to eye on this war, the disastrous effect it’s having on our prestige and ability to be a “leader” in this new world order.
    For me, I’d vote for either guy. For those who cry that a guy like Ron Paul is anti-abortion, get over it. He’s a constitutionalist and doesn’t agree with courts making decisions like that. He is pro-states rights and would most likely accept the idea that states can decide these things.
    As for those who dislike Feingold, he’s not THAT liberal (compared to the Kucinichs and Waxmans of the world). He is a man of principle, has proven he’ll work with the right when it makes sense (and there is room for compromise) and is extremely smart.
    I hope to God somebody cut from their mold runs vs. the status quo that most likely will run.
    If we don’t see change by the 08 elections, I fear that we will be at the point of no return where greed and cronyism becomes status quo and America is officially written off by the world.

    Reply

  19. pauline says:

    Punchy:
    Why did you seriously think there was a real difference between Dems and Repubs? They want you to think so, but so many fake conservative Repubs have not vetoed one bushwacker spending bill nor looked to control the size of the fed gov’t. Dems have no real programs to offer, and as you say, “If they haven’t seen the problems, the incompetence, the arrogance, and the destruction of the environment yet, they never will.”
    For both sides, it’s really all about their careers and the tons of money they’re making now and after they bring home the rest of their campaign funds to become lobbyists for the same industries they supposedly were overseeing in Congress. Look at Congress’ approval ratings! lower than bushwackers worst!!
    Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country — by supporting Russ Feingold and Ron Paul type “independent” thinkers in a true third party run.
    Many Americans do seem dumb enough to think the Constitution only applies to major major parties.

    Reply

  20. Punchy says:

    Honestly, if Americans (of which I am one) are so stupid, so lacking foresight, and so able to be influenced by short-term “resolutions”, then there truly is no hope for this country.
    I’m sorry, but count me out as one of those “Democrats need to harp on ___(fill in the blank)”. If they haven’t seen the problems, the incompetence, the arrogance, and the destruction of the environment yet, they never will. Nothing between now and Nov. will change that.

    Reply

  21. pauline says:

    Hey Den Valron:
    don’t forget about the “collateral damage” we caused after the 500lb bombs were dropped.
    “The only resistance encountered by black-clad American commandos was from local Sunni villagers in the village of Ghalabiya, near Hibhib, who thought the strangers were members of a Shia death squad. Villagers who were standing guard fired into the air on seeing the commandos who in turn threw a grenade that killed five of the guards. American regular army troops later came to Ghalabiya to apologise and promise compensation to the families of the dead men.”

    Reply

  22. Den Valdron says:

    Masculine vs. Feminine? Jesus H. Christ, Bilhagoatie, I damn near bust a gut laughing at that. What that post tells me is that someone deeply needs to get laid, and that it ain’t ever going to happen, unless the woman is in a coma. Terry Schiavo, where are you now? Har.
    As for Grayson, I’m pretty sure that his posts are fascist parody.
    Con George is as diaretic and incoherent as usual. Check.
    Okay, lissen up, here’s the real story on Zaquari.
    1) Zaquari was apparently unguarded, living in a household of six, including two women and a a little girl. That meant that including him, there were maybe three combat effective males. For this, America needed to drop not one, but *two* 500 pound bombs? Can you say “chickenshit nation.” What’s the problem here. Too much trouble to just have someone walk up to his house, knock on the door and put a cap in his ass? Were American forces so incompetent and ineffectual that they couldn’t just raid the place? You figure that little eight year old girl needed killing? Or you figure that its worth it to kill eight year old girls if they’re in the neighborhood when you are going after the bad guy? Oh, and running the pictures of the corpse on national television? What’s up with that? Is that class or what? I’m thinking ‘or what’, as in ‘grisly acts of necrophile pandering’ sorts of ‘or what.’
    Stop and think about it for a minute. What sort of impression does it make when the United States demonstrates that it is perfectly willing to kill women and children. This doesn’t put you on the side of the good guys. And a few mumbles about ‘collateral damage’ don’t wash. You figure dead women and children are the way to win respect in the muslim world? What kind of message does that send?
    And dropping bombs on an unguarded man. What sort of impression does that make on the Muslims. The fact that 150,000 US troops were too chickenshit to go near the guy? Nope, he might have had a knife, or at least a really stale breadstick. Let’s drop a really big bomb on him… No wait, let’s drop two.
    And this whole broadcasting mutilated corpses on television? Jesus Christ. My cat brings dead mice home to show me her kill. Well, that’s my cat. Human beings gotta have higher standards. Again, its not winning friends or influencing people.
    To the extent that you killed the guy, well and good. But you’ve killed him in a way that guarantees he’ll be a martyr for the next generation.
    About the only good thing about this whole chickenshit mess is that Zaquari simply wasn’t all that important. The truth is that the Shia hated him, he pissed off most of the Sunni tribes, the Iranians and the Iraqi government were after him, not even the Kurds liked him. In terms of significant control or direction of the Iraqi resistance, he had none. He was just another guy throwing bombs, no big deal. There’s a line up of them waiting.
    The best estimates place foreign Jihadi’s as only about 3 to 6% of the Iraqi resistance. Big fat hairy deal. Even if Zaquari was in control of all of the foreign fighters, it wouldn’t be a blow, more like a mosquito bite. And he wasn’t in control of most of that foreign contingent, so it wasn’t even a mosquito bite. Its a pinch, thats all.
    Ultimately, Zaquari’s reputation was an American invention, and ultimately his death is an American invention. Things are just going to keep going on without him.
    The question you want to be looking at in Iraq is the electricity production, or the oil production, the state of schools or hospitals, the safety on the streets. All of those markers are going down and down…
    In the end, Zaquari is just a dog and pony show, while the place burns down around your ears.
    “Masculine vs. Feminine” HAR

    Reply

  23. Keshini says:

    Hey Nostrils, do you know that of the 20,000 estimated insurgents in Iraq, about 1,000 are thought to be Islamic jihadists? And that only about 1% of the Iraqi people trust the US troops to protect them?
    Courtesy of the Reality-based Community

    Reply

  24. karenk says:

    TWO FRONT WAR?? How old are you? You gotta purge your WW II thinking and take a leap into the new millenium my friend.
    THERE ARE NO FRONTS IN THIS WAR. Unless you consider the NYC subway system, bridges or the Capitol Building to be a “front”, in which case there are THOUSANDS.
    The war on terror is a war on an ideology of hatred and has no concrete boundaries, or “Fronts” as we have traditionally known them. Furthermore, there is not a concrete amount of those who will embrace this ideology of hate and be willing to commit guerilla warfare in urban, civilian settings.
    If there is one main front in the war on terror, it’s the INTERNET. This is why old fashioned,”inside the triangle” thinking like yours cannot help us win this New Millenium war.(It’s like the fighter jets on 9/11 who were flying out in the Atlantic, away from NYC, looking for Russian missles)

    Reply

  25. OCPatriot says:

    I notice the memo quoted uses the words “Global War on Terror.” As far as I’m concerned that is nonsense and here’s why:
    There is no such thing as a “war on terror” or “war on terrorism.” It is a stupid statement, and I’ll explain why in a moment. I don’t mean that as a pejorative. And to repeat it, or give it any credence, is to help spread a lie, a deliberate attempt at propaganda, or a statement by a person who does not know what he or she is talking about. I find that the newspapers and television, as well as “blogs” on the internet, all use the phrase “war on terror” and it does everyone a disservice. Google alone states that there are 137,000,000 references to this phase.
    When our President, George Bush, says those words, he is talking non-sense. So is anyone else using these words. The reason I am writing this article is to explain this phenomenon.
    The words are inflammatory, and their ultimate effect often deliberately to cause people to suspend any rational judgment about the things the speaker wants to do because of this so-called “War on Terror.” When rational judgment is suspended, people will do anything no matter how ineffective it is because of the emotional mind-clouding power, and the fear it gives rise to, when such meaningless words are used.
    It is also extremely sloppy journalism to repeat this phase, except as a direct quote, because it is meaningless. It is as meaningless as “war on laziness” or the “war on weather.” Journalists seem never to have heard of semantics, which looks at the meaning of words and how their use affects us.
    Right now, we as a country are involved in a number of situations, one or two very separate wars, some diplomatic efforts, and a very diverse set of circumstances that may possibly threaten our way of life, and we, as a country, appear to be afraid of a number of diversified groups of people who reside in various countries. We are also, as a country, possibly threatened in a number of ways by a number of countries, as opposed to small scattered groups of people.
    If we can define what these groups and countries are and distinguish how they differ from one another, it can help us to understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and what the characteristics of all this mixed up “war on terror” might really mean. This, of course, immediately implies that there is no one single opponent against whom we can wage war, but instead presents a variety of different situations, some more dangerous than others, each of them requiring that we handle them, as best we can, in different ways if we want to reduce any threat they pose.
    • The first group of people that we claim to be fighting with is a vaguely defined group, once led by a man named Bin Laden, that calls itself Al Qaeda. It appears to be based in Afghanistan, but may have spread to various other countries. It is a loosely-knit, guerrilla group that dislikes “the West”, vaguely defined as European and American countries. We don’t know nearly enough about it to be “at war” with this group because it is so diffuse, and it is all too easy to confuse it with other groups at times. It is not certain that its leaders are alive or have control over this group because it is so diffuse. Originally, it was most probably responsible for the event known as “9/11”. We, as a country under President Bush, claim to be fighting this group but appear to have lost interest in pursuing this group forcefully.
    I say “claim to be fighting” because, for all of our efforts, we have never caught Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda appears to be stronger than ever before. We have troops in Afghanistan, but they appear to be there mainly poised to defend the central government, which has been threatened by a number of groups including the Taliban (the prior totalitarian government), war lords in various provinces, and a loose network of guerillas including the Al Qaeda group. The current Administration, led by President Bush, has apparently de-emphasized our military efforts in Afghanistan and his rhetoric, his use of the words “war on terror”, appear to be mainly directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan.
    The number of deaths of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in this first military operation is 255 with 765 injured as of January 2006, as tracked by Wikipedia. I cite this figure in sharp contrast to the number of U.S. troops killed in the next military effort, still going on today, in Iraq which was 2,299 U.S. soldiers killed and 33,094 seriously injured as of March 2006 (cited at the site http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspxhttp://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The disparity between Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of dead and casualties is very revealing about what is being emphasized.
    • The second group that we were fighting was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. It was a war declared by President Bush, with no real resistance from Congress. The enemy was a vague one – mainly the dictator, Saddam Hussein, who somehow had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was linked vaguely to “terrorists”, the same ones named in Afghanistan as being Al Qaeda. None of these reasons has proven to be true. I repeat: None of the reasons given for this war have been proven to be true. As cited above, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq as a result of this war. Because of what the President and his Administration have been saying, and repeating as a mantra, according to many surveys, many people in the U.S. believe, irrationally, that this war is being fought as a “war on terror.” This is simply not an accurate or true statement.
    It appears that Iraq has three major ethnic groups that have never gotten along. When Saddam was in charge of the country, the Sunni controlled everything with an iron hand. The Shiites, although in the majority, had no political power. The Kurds, the third group, also had no power. Once Saddam’s forces were overcome by the U.S. forces, the Shiites grabbed political power, the Kurds grabbed the northern part of the country, and the Sunni who had control and resented losing it have begun conducting an insurgency. The Shiites and the Sunni both have deep hatred of each other; it is obvious that the Sunni aren’t used to being out of power, and the Shiites resent all of the terrible things that were done to their people when the Sunni were in power. This is has led to brutal killings, with our troops in the middle, mainly siding with the Shiite majority. The country at this time may be in civil war.
    Our troops really aren’t fighting “terror” or “terrorists” here. They are actually intervening in an internal conflict that has been going on for a long time back to when England and Winston Churchill was involved. I will add that there have been instances of non-Iraqi individuals crossing the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran to attack American military forces, and some of these individuals may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that is not the biggest part of the problem. In fact, because of our invasion of Iraq and our destruction of the status quo, by eliminating Saddam Hussein, it may be that we have opened a whole new breeding ground for, and encouraged, these individuals to learn how to operate successfully and conduct terrorist operations.
    Iraq thus appears to be involved in a civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites, with Kurds protecting their interests, and some outsiders conducting guerilla terrorist operations aimed at fomenting unrest and driving the U.S. forces out. We cannot be involved in a “war on terror” here because there are at least four separate parties here, and it isn’t always clear who is doing what to hurt or kill whom.
    • A third arena whom we are not fighting is North Korea, a dictatorship that is working to build an atomic bomb capability. This country is a military threat to South Korea because it possesses a huge standing army of more than a million soldiers. It is a country with a well-defined government, not a loosely organized group of individuals. We have not declared war on them, nor have they declared war on the U.S. But for some reason, at times, they have been included in this “war on terror.”
    • A fourth arena that is also sometimes referred to under the mantra of “war on terror” is Iran. Iran is the largest country in the Middle East, with a government that is primarily run by its religious right. They may provide a place for Al Qaeda and other groups which dislike the U.S. for various reasons to develop and train members. We are not at war with Iran, and they are not at war with us. But, for some reason, they also have been lumped into this “war on terror”.
    • There are other places in the world, such as South America and the Philippines, that have been also lumped into this “war on terror”, but, again, we have not declared war on them nor have they declared war on the U.S. Numerous groups, some of which hate the U.S. and some involved in insurgencies against their existing government, have the earmarks of “terrorists” in that they conduct underground operations, kill people indiscriminately, have loose organizations, may or may not be linked to other similar organizations.
    • In general, it is also important to separate different types of terrorists (a very maligned word) into specific and different groups. For example, Basque separatists, in Spain, commit what we would call terrorist acts. So do the Tamil Tigers in northern Sri Lanka. They can both be called “terrorists.” Please note that, although these groups commit acts that seem to be terrorist acts, such as blowing up bombs in public places and killed innocent civilians, both of these groups are internal in their countries and act much as if they were engaged in a civil war against their existing government.
    • So we are not at war with all of the groups I’ve mentioned. We couldn’t be. Many of them have no government for us to declare war on. It is sloppy use of communication to say that we are engaged in a “war on terror” when we really need to understand that there are many such groups around the world, each separate and different, each requiring different tactics, each posing a different type of threat (in some cases, no threat) to our country.
    Please remember that next time you hear these words. If you understand what has been said here, you will be able to determine how absurd such a claim is (“war on terror”) and look at what the person saying these words is really trying to do. He or she may be trying to scare you so you don’t think clearly; he or she may be pushing an agenda to take rights away from you; he or she may be saying such words to get elected again; or to be considered “patriotic” or “strong” or “effective”. Always listen to the words and match them to the actions. The outcome may surprise you and open your eyes to what is actually going on.
    ###

    Reply

  26. Kathleen says:

    REAL MEN????? What planet are you on? You mean those armchair warriors who are too chickenshit to go to fight themselves, but love to send other peoples’ children to kill and be killed so they can haul money to the bank? You bloodthirsty idiot. Go pound your Bible.

    Reply

  27. Nostrils Aflare says:

    The US just released the picture of the new al-Quaida leader in Iraq, and grrrr I hate that guy; I was shaking my clenched fist at him shouting at the TV screen, “Yeah, bring it on buddy, you gonna die!” It felt Grrreat!
    And a small note was added to the news that 2,500 of our soldiers had now been killed by the terrorists in Iraq, which again heightened my resolve that these brave soldiers’ death shall not be for nought as we shall do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists of Iraq, the center of the Global War on Terror.

    Reply

  28. pauline says:

    I’m sure the bushwacked liars/thieves/murderers loved this news perspective from http://www.counterpunch.org on Monday.
    June 12, 2006
    This Unguarded Man Was Iraq’s Most Potent Terrorist?
    The US Already Misses Zarqawi
    By PATRICK COCKBURN
    In the days before he was tracked down and killed by US lazer-guided bombs Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was living with almost no guards and only five companions, two of whom were women and one an eight year old girl.
    US military were yesterday displaying the few tattered possessions of Zarqawi and those who died with him in the rubble of an isolated house half hidden by date palms outside the village of Hibhib in Diyala province north east of Baghdad.
    The ease with which Iraqi police and US special forces were able to reach the house after the bombing without encountering hostile fire showed that Zarqawi was never the powerful guerrilla chieftain and leader of the Iraqi resistance that Washington has claimed for over three years.
    Amid the broken slabs of concrete and twisted metal was a woman’s leopard skin nightgown, a magazine with a picture of Franklin Roosevelt and a leaflet apparently identifying a radio station in Latafiyah which might be a potential target for attack. It is not clear how long the little group had been in the house.
    Zarqawi himself was dragged dying from the ruins of his house by Iraqi police and strapped to a stretcher. “Zarqawi did in fact survive the air strike,” said Maj Gen William Caldwell, the US military spokesmen. Covered in blood he survived a few minutes after the Americans arrived and muttered a few unintelligible words. “Zarqawi attempted to turn away off the stretcher,’ said Gen Caldwell. “They–everybody–re-secured him back onto the stretcher, but he died almost immediately thereafter from the wounds he received from the airstrike.”
    The only resistance encountered by black-clad American commandos was from local Sunni villagers in the village of Ghalabiya, near Hibhib, who thought the strangers were members of a Shia death squad. Villagers who were standing guard fired into the air on seeing the commandos who in turn threw a grenade that killed five of the guards. American regular army troops later came to Ghalabiya to apologise and promise compensation to the families of the dead men.
    The manner in which Zarqawi died confirms the belief that his military and political importance was always deliberately exaggerated by the US. He was a wholly obscure figure until he was denounced by US Secretary of State Colin Powell before the US Security Council on 5 February 2003. Mr Powell identified Zarqawi as the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein though no evidence for this was ever produced.
    Iraqi police documents were later discovered showing that Saddam Hussein’s security forces, so far from collaborating with Zarqawi, were trying to arrest him. In Afganistan Zarqawi had led a small group hostile to al Qa’ida. Arriving in Iraq in 2002 hee had taken refuge in the mountain hide out of an extreme Islamic group near Halabja in Kurdistan in an area which the Iraqi government did not control.
    Over the last three years Zarqawi has had a symbiotic relationship with US forces in Iraq. After the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 Zarqawi was once again heavily publicised by US military and civilian spokesmen as the preeminent leader of the resistance. His name was mentioned at every press conference in Baghdad. Dubious documents were leaked to the US press. The aim of all this from Washington’s point of view was to show that by invading Iraq President Bish was indeed fighting international terrorism.
    US denunciations and Zarqawi’s own videos of himself beheading western hostages together spread his fame throughout the Muslim world enabling him to recruit men and raise money easily. But, for all his vaunted importance, the US spokesmen admitted that Zarqawi’s suicide bombers concentrated almost entirely on soft targets and were responsible for very few of the 20,000 American casualties in Iraq.
    It is difficult to track the movements of Zarqawi over the last three years but until the summer of 2005 he appears to have lived in or around Ramadi in Anbar province west of Baghdad. The area is almost entirely Sunni and largely under the control of the resistance, but increased US military activity in Ramadi last year reportedly forced him out. He was also heavily criticised by some other resistance groups and tribes for launching a sectarian war against the Shia which blackened the name of the insurgency at home and abroad.
    In moving to Diyala province north east of Baghdad Zarqawi was in more danger. The province is divided between Sunni and Shia along with some Kurds who have been fighting a ferocious local civil war with frequent tit- for-tat killings. For instance police yesterday found the severed heads of two Sunni Arab brothers in the small town of Khan Bani Saad near Baquba, the capital of Diyala province, from which they had been kidnapped a week ago.
    Diyala has advantages as a hiding place over other Iraqi provinces. It is better watered than most of Iraq with many rivers and streams running into the Tigris. It is famous in Iraq for its orchards and date plantations and is particularly well known for growing pomegranates which are sold in the large fruit market in Baquba. There are many agricultural villages and the foliage of palms and trees provide cover from air attack though the house in which Zarqawi died was clearly visible from aircraft.
    It is not clear how far American or Iraqi government statements about how they located him should be believed. It appears unlikely that he was having meeting with his lieutenants, as was first suggested, given that only two other men died with him.
    There are already signs that in propaganda terms the US military–as well as the media–is missing Zarqawi as a single demonic figure who could be presented as the leader of the resistance. A US military commander was already saying last week that Zarqawi’s most likely successor was Abu Ayyub al-Masari, an Egyptian born fighter trained in Afganistan whom it is claimed came to Baghdad in 2002 to set up an al Qa’ida cell.
    The myth of Zarqawi, which may originally have been manufactured by Jordanian and Kurdish intelligence in 2003, was attractive to Washington because it showed that anti-occupation resistance was foreign inspired and linked to al Qa’ida. In reality the insurgency was almost entirely homegrown, reliant on near total support from the five million strong Sunni community. Its military effectiveness was far more dependant on former officers of the Iraqi army and security forces than on al-Qa’ida. They may also have helped boost Zarqawi’s fame because it was convenient for them to blame their worst atrocities on him.
    One impact of the death of Zarqawi may be to lessen the threat of attacks in Jordan, his home country. It was he who was behind the attack on hotels in Jordan last year which killed 60 people. He was also the most unrelenting advocate in the resistance for attacks on Shia Muslims, 60 per cent of the Iraqi population, as heretics, enemies of the Sunni just as much as American soldiers.
    The killing of Zarqawi is a boost for the newly formed government of Nouri al-Maliki, but Iraqis noticed that when announcing it he stood at the podium between Gen George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, and Zilmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador. “It showed the limits of Maliki’s independence from the Americans,” noted one Iraqi commentator. “It would have been better if they had let him make the announcement standing alone.”
    In the wake of Zarqawi’s death Maliki was able to announce that the names of his new Interior Minister Jawad Khadim Polani and Abdul Qadr Mohammed Jassim as Defence Minister. Both are obscure figures but also former members of the Iraqi army opposed to Saddam Hussein. They will have difficulty getting control of their own ministries.
    Maliki has said privately that his biggest problem is that his cabinet consists entirely of ministers who are the representatives of different parties. They were only appointed after rancorous negotiations. He cannot dismiss them however disobedient, incompetent or corrupt they may be. Each minister uses his or her ministry as a fiefdom to be exploited for patronage and money.
    By the time he died Zarqawi’s list of enemies included the US, the Iraqi government, many of the Sunni tribes and insurgent leaders. The biggest surprise surrounding his death last week was that it took so long to happen.

    Reply

  29. greyson says:

    karenk, We are at War, and we must be prepared to extinguish any possiblity of having to fight a two front war, one here and one abroad. An Oath of Allegiance would bring together citizens of patriotic like mind so that they could organized into neighborhood militias and monitor the activities of the disaffected to the American cause. The political situation in America calls for such measures, the same way as the Tory threat of the pre-American revolution days required the true American Patriots to identify the enemy within through an oath of allegiance to the American cause called the “Association.” Those who did not sign were watched over by those who did and in some cases disarmed. This is not a fascist measure, it is as American as apple pie and has its antecedents directly from the founding of our country. Furthermore, I would like to see the organization of local county committees for “Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies” as was also done in pre-Revolutionary days. We need to nip in the bud the ever growing potential fifth column arising among our citizenry before they get a foothold within our country and this should start from grassroots with support from the highest levels of the present national government.
    God Bless America

    Reply

  30. karenk says:

    Greyson:
    I see you subscribe to Bush’s “If you’re not with us you’re against us” adage(a view that is so simple minded it’s not worth dissecting). And by “oath to America”, you mean an oath to the policies of the Bush Admin, correct? It certainly sounds like you believe that just because one doesn’t agree with the current administrations policies then they are anti American? (that’s an old fascist trick, you know) Perhaps you’d like all dissenters to be rendered to a secret prisons?
    And of you and Con George I must ask, If things are going so well in Iraq why did George Bush have to fly in secretly and only stay for 5 hours?

    Reply

  31. Bilhagoatee says:

    The Masculine vs. the Feminine.
    Played out in spades today!
    God, how that always works, and the best part is The Real Men and Women have as an opponent an effeminate and Gay Party of whom they only need to remind the America public of every once in a while with the likes of Res. 861.
    Karl Rove’s job is very easy; he’s no genius; he only recognizes the fatal flaw in the opponent and exploits it regularly, and the Dems invariably play their asigned role, they have no choice, God made them that way and they coalesed into a single major political party doomed because of who they are. In peacetime maybe these feminines might have a chance in taking the reigns of power, but during the Global War on Terror they shall never see any power for it is the time of the Real Men and Women of this Great Nation to lead us through perilous times which hopefully will last for as long as it takes to make the the choice in American politics between center-Right and far-Right, and no more.

    Reply

  32. David says:

    It is extremely necessary for the Democrats, as one, to not show up for Res. 861 vote, hold press conference to toatlly vilify Bush and the Res. 861 scheme and its contents, and to declare “Bush Is Not Our President.” Let the election festivities begin. ‘You wanna play games with Res. 861, Rethugs, we have just renounced the Commander in Chief, he is no longer that in our eyes.’ Then they had better be ready to assume that title with ideas that fully counter all points of the goose-stepping evil.
    It’s the only way. Res. 861 is designed to cut their balls off, bend them over, and emasculate them for a final time. And I say final because it is the last straw, Dems have little to run against if they cowardly sign on (they will have approved the Bush foreign policy in total), if they don’t sign they are set to be called repeatly unpatriotic, supporting the terrorists, un- Americann, blah, blah, blah, the same bullshit Cold War McCartyite tactic the Rethugs have always used.
    Thus, the only course is a complete and total break from the administration as the leadship in this country in saying ‘Bush Is Not Our President’ and splitting the country into those who wish to follow the Boy King and those who renounce him. The Dems will win the majority of the peoples if they have a clear, concise’, cogent top 25 reasons they renounce this government, and its ideology. An “Armageddon” in American politics. Death Match.

    Reply

  33. Marika says:

    If the dems haven’t enough sense to see they are being set-up it is hopeless.
    Why does everyone adopt the Republican vocabulary? There is no “War in Iraq,” there is an occupation of Iraq, an occupation planned and carried out. There is no,”Gobal War on Terror,” there are terrorist who fill the wish basket of the administration and a press that swallows and regurgitates the doublespeak.
    If the consquences were not so dreadful these psychotic states to which we are prone -see the McCarthy era–would be childish regressions, but they are horribly dangerous, for us and the world.
    As Steve Clemons says, Kerry is waking up, but when will there be others? It is late and the clock is ticking.
    After reading H.Res.861 it would not be surprising to see an urgent motion to find a vaccine against flag-burning to avoid an impending pandemic.
    Is this what we really deserve?

    Reply

  34. Con George-Kotzabasis says:

    No positive news coming out from Iraq will satisfy the snivelling and sniggering liberal inteligentsia, except, it seems, the defeat of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq. Not long ago, they were impugning and pillorying the Administration for its inability to capture or kill either bin Laden or Zarqawi, as significant signs of the failure of the war against global terror. Now that one of the PIVOTS of their argument has been “violently” removed, i.e., the death of Zarqawi, they transformed it as “swagger is back.”
    The formation of a government of national unity with a new Prime Minister, the completion of appointing to the senior cabinet posts of defense and interior a Sunni and a Shiite respectively, and the abyssmal failure of the critics of the war in regards to their prognosis that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war–and now that this war is not occurring the liberals, such as Clemons and Nir Rosen have rechristened it as “sectarian violence”–these achievements, according to Clemons, merely ratchet “up the arrogance and hubris of America’s position in Iraq.”
    On the contrary, the good news that are coming out of Iraq indicate, that the war might turn out to be a resounding success of the Administration’s strategy not only for Iraq, but for the region in general. And the liberal intelligentsia will have so much egg on its face, that its financial donors, such as Soros, will have to hire numberless nannies to clean its face.

    Reply

  35. steve duncan says:

    I check icasualties.org every day for Iraq conflict updates. U.S. deaths have been reported as 2497 for several days (since 6/9) and a cursory look at other months reveals casualty free spans of this length are extremely rare or nonexistent. I wonder how much Bush wanted the headline “2500 Killed” avoided during this little flurry of happy talk? No particular significance to that number really but people latch onto even figures and I can see some in the media making a big deal out of it. Betcha death reports are being withheld. Let’s see during later updates how many casualties actually get dated between the 9th and the next death. And this lull is happening during increased patrols and confrontations with hostile parties? Bullshit.

    Reply

  36. Marky says:

    The Democrats are not spineless: key top Democrats are bought and paid for. Others are not bought yet, but they are up for sale.
    Biden, Hillary, Schumer, et. al are on Bush’s side. Once you understand this, there is no mystery about the Republican’s stranglehold on power.

    Reply

  37. Pissed Off American says:

    After the overwhelming passage of Res. 861, it would be a good time to have each American citizen to reaffirm their commitment to the United States of America by signing an Oath of Allegiance. This would be a first good step in identifying those whose are in such a state of disaffection that they might, at some point, side with a terrorists and become a fifth column. This is necesssary now considering the deep venomous divide in America, and some citizens hating their own country’s clear and decisive victories in the Global War on Terror.
    God Bless America !
    Posted by greyson
    Take a look at the post I quoted above. That is the face of fascism, and it is only going to get worse if we do not wrest these people out of Washington.

    Reply

  38. joe says:

    here’s letter from Slaughter, Rules Committee about the parameters of the 861 “kangaroo” debate tomorrow.
    Earlier today, Slaughter had a blog on dailykos
    about all the fraud and corruption in the ‘nation building’ contracts. So now we got
    * failed ‘stay the course’ that guarentees War Without End
    * failed ‘nation building’ that guarentees Billions of $’s for incomplete electric projects and unfinished clean drinking water systems.
    FOR MEMBER’S PERSONAL ATTENTION
    June 14, 2006
    Dear Colleague:
    On Wednesday, June 14th at about 5:30 P.M. the House Rules Committee reported a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.Res. 861, a resolution “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the completion of the mission in Iraq.” It is anticipated that this rule and the resolution will be on the House floor tomorrow.
    The rule provides for 10 hours of general debate, divided in the following way: 2 ½ hours controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, 2 ½ hours controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, 2 ½ hours controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, and 2 ½ hours controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee.
    Unfortunately, Rules Committee Republicans rejected an amendment I offered to debate this resolution under an open rule, which would have given every Member the right to strike the last word and speak for five minutes about the important issues of war and peace that this resolution raises. An open rule would have also given Members the opportunity to amend H.Res. 861 and thereby force the House to consider a broad range of policy alternatives to the Iraq policy expressed in the resolution.
    If you have any questions regarding this rule, please contact John Williams of my staff at 5-9486.
    Sincerely,
    /s
    Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules

    Reply

  39. Jon says:

    Hi Steve–
    I see this new swagger and worry that once again, with critical elections coming up, the Democrats will just roll over and continue to be a visionless, spineless, divided party.
    At what point will the Democrats be tough again, tell it like it is–that the Republicans have made a mess of things and “here”. And offer a compelling alternative–a positive vision that the majority of Americans can and do grab on to for how they are going to make things better than the current mess. And the Democrats have to go out there and sell that positive vision and not let it get hijacked by Frank Luntz and Karl Rove.
    Things like:
    –Energy Independence/Freedom from Foreign Oil – appealing to America’s “can do” and “we are the best” patriotic spirit.
    –Prestige Around the World, as leaders, as icons of freedom. This was something I was brought up to be very proud of as a child.
    –Economy (tied in with energy independence). Things are not good now. With high energy prices, the middle class is hurting. That is the reality. More and more of our money going to oil companies to pay high gas prices means less and less to spend on everything else.
    –Environment, including its links to public health, safety and security, qualiy of life: our parks, America’s Natural Heritage, are falling to pieces under the Republicans, the polluters the Republicans have appointed to be charge of the Executive and Legislatitve Branch departments and committees are allowing more pollution and destruction of our natural heritage, the risks of pollution to public health and our children are increasing.
    –Global Warming (as a security, energy independence and economic issue, as well as an economic opportunity for America to take the lead in helping the world transition to a new carbon-free economy, and of course as an environmental issue–a threat to America’s natural heritage and our children’s).
    And on and on.
    We need the Democrats to come out with a compelling positive vision for a better world that the majority of Americans can hold on to and say “wow, that just makes me FEEL good, makes me tingle with hope. It sounds a whole lot better than what we have now”.
    And for them to have the right people as the messangers to the masses. People with spine who can, in Aikido-like fasion, take attacks on their message and policies, and deftly turn the attacks back on their attackers.
    Until the Democrats can do this, they will continue to inspire some hope among the faithful, but in the end, will continue to find disappointment and near victories on election day.
    The party continues to lack a core message that gets me excited, and (as the low turnout of the primaries demonstrated) that will get the masses to the voting booth.
    Not just America, but the world, badly needs this to happen.

    Reply

  40. greyson says:

    After the overwhelming passage of Res. 861, it would be a good time to have each American citizen to reaffirm their commitment to the United States of America by signing an Oath of Allegiance. This would be a first good step in identifying those whose are in such a state of disaffection that they might, at some point, side with a terrorists and become a fifth column. This is necesssary now considering the deep venomous divide in America, and some citizens hating their own country’s clear and decisive victories in the Global War on Terror.
    God Bless America !

    Reply

  41. twnblo says:

    I posted this on the wrong thread:
    Whereas: The real intent of the invasion of Iraq having been revealed to be a petro-geopolitical imperial adventure;
    The insurgency in Iraq having nothing to do with terrorism, but composed mainly of those opposed to a foreign occupation that seeks to dominate the region and its resources;
    The said insurgency fueled by suspicions of a permanent occupation being therefore inexhaustible and uncompromising in its goal to oust the invader;
    The said insurgency therefore leading to a calamitous loss and destruction of life, peace and stability;
    Resolved:That the US will cease and desist from a disastrous and failed imperial adventure and withdraw its troops to friendlier countries.

    Reply

  42. Pissed Off American says:

    Al Qaeda in Iraq is a fucking smokescreen, just a TINY part of the problem, IF it is a problem at all. Holding up Iraq as a viable part of the so called GWOT is such idiocy that it defies all imagination. Do these lying bastards in Washington REALLY expect us to believe that torture, rendering, napalming Fallujah, (etc), and our unfaltering willingness to support Israel’s blatant human rights abuses against the Pals is REALLY a winning strategy to fight Islamic radicalism and the GROWING HATRED that the Muslims have against America???
    Why isn’t anyone mentioning the irrefutable LIES AND SPIN that we have been fed about Zarqawi in the past? Heres a boogie man that has TWICE been killed, and has lost a limb only to grow it back for the so called “Berg Video”. Bush resurrects the Al Qaeda boogiemen as needed, and we are supposed to keep buying this crap?
    Calling Iraq anything other than a clusterfuck that is spiraling out of control is an exercise in dishonesty, and paints an impossibly surreal picture of the REALITY on the ground. How long are these scumballs going to get away with this shit? How many must DIE before we are finally going to realize that if Bush’s lips are moving, he is LYING???
    Zarqawi is irrelevant, alive or dead. What IS relevant is our insane willingness to keep debating this bullshit, when the REAL ISSUE is Bush’s criminal disregard for the welfare and security of our nation as he bankrupts us, and alienates us from the world community. He is a CRIMINAL LIAR, he has committed HIGH CRIMES AND TREASON by his actions since 9/11, and if he is not stopped soon, he will give us another neo-con concocted “trifecta”. Wake up.

    Reply

  43. Kathleen says:

    The GOP is drinking the Cool Aid and they want us to drink it toooo. They’re having a shared hallucination about victory in iraq.

    Reply

  44. joe says:

    June 14, 2006
    Here’s the link to Abercrombie’s press conference.
    http://www.house.gov/list/press/hi01_abercrombie/Mil_iraq_hres861_06a.html

    Reply

  45. joe says:

    june 14, 2006
    War Supporters Ready to Debate the “Best of All Possible Wars”
    The House Republican leadership has an exquisite sense of timing. First, our air force drops a 500-lb bomb, killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Next, Nuri al-Maliki completes his cabinet appointments. Then, President Bush and his senior advisors convene at Camp David to talk about Iraq.
    Drum roll, please…House Majority Leader Boehner announces a debate on the Iraq War for this Thursday. Could there be a better time for an aye-vote on “Stay the Course”?
    Boehner’s response to the groundswell of grass roots support for a full and open debate about Iraq is H. Res. 861, which provides unconditional support for the Iraq War and equates it with the “Global War on Terror.” Ignoring the calls of American citizens across the country for a Congressional debate where all alternatives to the “Stay the Course” strategy can be presented and debated, Boehner is using the power of the Majority Party to propose a resolution that will embarrass those Democrats and Republicans calling for open and honest debate. Read the full resolution here.
    Do not be fooled by Boehner and his gang! The Democrats have been and ARE active on this issue. They’ve been pushing since December for H Res 543, which would get the war a fair hearing. But Boehner and the majority of the GOP are afraid of that, and so are throwing H Res 861 out there as a red herring.
    No Reason for Change
    The astounding thing about H. Res. 861 is that does not contain a single recommendation to the President. Apparently, the Iraq War is going so swimmingly that there’s no room for change!
    No reason to rethink our mission, in light of an Iraqi civil war that has little to do with al-Qaeda (a CBS News poll reports that 82% of Americans believe Iraq is experiencing a civil war).
    No reason to clarify our policy on torture or rules of engagement.
    No reason to root out corruption, fraud, and abuse in our reconstruction contracts with US multinationals.
    No reason to transform a suspect American mission into a legitimate international effort.
    And certainly no reason to question whether our military occupation of Iraq is creating more terrorists around the world than we are killing.
    A Real Debate
    Is there any alternative to this faux debate? Yes, H. Res. 543, sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), and currently supported by 124 Members of the House, including 4 Republicans. This resolution is supported by a broad coalition of grassroots organizations, including DC for Democracy. It provides for a 17-hour debate, an “open rule” where any amendment can be proposed and equal control of the discussion by the Majority and Minority leaders. The structure of the debate allows for the complexity of the challenges we face in Iraq, and allows the Congress to debate and vote on the full breadth of alternatives to our current policies. For more information on the campaign for H. Res. 543, visit http://www.dcfordemocracy.org/change-the-course/ and for list of signers and non-signers by state of H.Res. 543. http://www.openiraqdebate.com/inner/roll-call.html

    Reply

  46. Kesh says:

    Abercrombie held a press conference yesterday, here’s an excerpt from his press release:
    “WASHINGTON, DC–Appearing at a news conference today with his hands bound in rope, Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) said restrictive debate rules for a resolution on the Iraq War “tied the hands” of Members of Congress who want a full and open discussion of the conflict.”
    Hopefully, this bogus Republican debate will build momentum for H. Res. 543, which has 124 suppporters to date. Visit http://www.openiraqdebate.org for more info.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *