Countdown: President Bush’s Cruel Treatment Of Our Soldiers

Countdown: President Bush’s Cruel Treatment Of Our Soldiers

By: Logan Murphy @ 7:20 PM - PDT

Today’s #5 story on Countdown resembled Keith Olbermann’s many Special Comments as he tore apart President Bush, his lies and cruel treatment of our soldiers by fact-checking his speech about Iraq this afternoon.

Download | Play Download | Play

President Bush has decided to put a hold on troop withdrawals, but tries to give the appearance that he’s actually reducing troop levels. He also reduced tours of duty for our soldiers from 15 months to 12, but with a cruel caveat — it doesn’t apply to any troops currently in Iraq or those deploying before August. Olbermann rips Bush for saying troop morale would plummet if we were to lose in Iraq by not fulfilling HIS goals, pointing out that some 120 soldiers committed suicide last year alone, and for them, the war is already over.

” Last year he escalated the war in Iraq, today he announced that there would be deescalation beyond July, yet somehow stood there with a straight face and lied about how he was withdrawing troops. Now, that was hardly the lone instance of dissembling, tortured logic, sophistry and outright dishonesty in Mr. Bush’s latest sugar-coating of the undeniable and unforgivable fact that he is continuing to arrange for the needless deaths of American heroes.”

Hagel: White House’s justification of Iraq is like ‘Alice In Wonderland.’

Hagel: White House’s justification of Iraq is like ‘Alice In Wonderland.’

Last night on the Daily Show, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) repeated his claim that the Iraq war has been “one of the great blunders of American history,” and that the White House is justifying “something that’s unjustifiable”:

Your question about how the administration deals with this now–well, they continue to justify something that’s not justifiable. It’s Alice in Wonderland: what’s up is down, what’s down is up.

Watch it:

Recently, Hagel rejected the idea that the surge has been a “success” considering the fact that U.S. has “lost over 900 dead Americans since the surge.”

Iraq Fighting Underscores Surge Failure

Iraq Fighting Underscores Surge Failure

New Questions Raised About Effectiveness Of Country's Leadership... Crisis Involves Deep-Seated Rivalries Within Shiite Community... Hundreds Killed In Less Than A Week... Shiite Cleric al-Sadr Offers Truce, But Fighting Persists... Hagel: Bush Administration's "Arrogance, Incompetence Put This Country In A Hole"... CIA Director Hayden Revises History On Iraq

Iraq Is Falling Apart

Iraq Is Falling Apart

By: Nicole Belle

And with all of King George’s horses and all of King George’s men, I don’t think we can put it back together again. I am so sick of hearing how the surge is working because a small discreet part of Baghdad is overmanned militarily.

One word: Basra. The Iraqi bloggers of Gorilla Guides are eyewitness to the devastation:

Parts of Basra were relatively quiet in the morning following the withdrawal of some fighters to the outskirts of the city however much of the city is seeing intensifying armed clashes. Eyewitness reports say that groups of Mahdi Army withdrew to the outskirts of the city after GZG forces backed by British tanks and US warplanes tried to eradicate them from areas that are strongholds of the Mahdi Army. Some witnesses confirmed that a group of the Mahdi Army captured two vehicles belonging to the GZG army type there are reliable reports that GZG barracks have been overrun.

One of our members in the city says that withdrawals appear to have been planned long before as part of a defense in depth strategy. Our members and contacts in city say that there is still a lot fighting going on. They also say that reports in the British media that british troops and aircraft are not involved in the fighting is a flat out lie and that British tanks are heavily involved. .

Udpate: [sic] The American war criminal Bush whose death squad in uniform called the U.S. armed forces are still trying to subjugate Irak and who have murdered innumerable Iraki Children women and men calls the carnage a “positive moment” you can read what he has to say for himself to the UK Times newspaper here.Tahseen al-Sheikhli one of the two main spokesmen for the “surge” was unavailable for comment because he has been kidnapped.

I considered editing the post to remove the reference to George Bush, but honestly, can you blame them for their characterization? These people do not think of American forces as liberators, no matter how many times that’s repeated on American TV.

There is too much and it is too difficult in this blog format to list all the reports of carnage, chaos and destruction, so click on the “Basra” link for multiple reports that shame all the media spin about the surge’s success, including the heart breaking report that the 9 year old brother of one of the bloggers passed away yesterday as a result of burns he received during an airstrike. His brother, Mohammed, author of this heartbreaking poem, already the victim of so much violence, survived being shot at while trying to carry his brother to the hospital.

Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar write the Five Things You Need To Know To Understand The Latest Violence In Iraq.

Mourning Their Loss?

Mourning Their Loss?

By: Nicole Belle

I love Helen Thomas. Look how flustered she makes Perino.

Media Bloodhound watched this presser and Dana Perino’s assertion that Bush mourn every military loss and asked “Really?”

And how was our mourner-in-chief spending his day as our four thousandth soldier took one last breath in the sands of Iraq? Goofing around the White House and posing for pictures with a six-foot-tall Easter Bunny. No, really.

As Edward M. Gomez pointed out in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Noted the British newspaper the Daily Express yesterday: “Bush larked about with a 6-[foot-tall] Easter Bunny yesterday [Sunday, March 23] as his troops mourned their 4000th death in Iraq. The grim milestone was reached after four U.S. servicemen were killed when their patrol in southern Baghdad was hit by a roadside bomb on Easter Sunday. The president was pictured hugging the [Easter Bunny] at the White House as children…took over the South Lawn for the [annual] Easter Egg Roll….”

Read the whole article here.

Violence Across Iraq Between US And Shiite Forces

Violence Across Iraq Between US And Shiite Forces

AP: Clashes Could
"Reverse Security Gains"

Tomorrow is Fifth Anniversary of the “Day of Shame”

Tomorrow is Fifth Anniversary of the “Day of Shame”

Vastleft at Corrente:

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.

His presentation contained little substance and numerous obvious flaws, and the international community was unimpressed.

America’s mainstream media, however, declared it “compelling.”

For a nation living in the ghostly shadow of the twin towers, the media’s Good Warmaking seal of approval was enough to keep that treasonous question — “why?” — relatively unheard.

The costs — in lives, money, reputation, and more — of this war of whim are nearly incalculable.

This year’s fifth anniversary coincides with a Super Tuesday primary like no other. As Americans across the country go to the polls, a couple of hundred thousand American troops, contractors, and mercenaries are still stewing in America’s longest and most ill-conceived war.

Read more at dayofshame.com…

Fortresses in the desert

The Burdens of Empire

For the better part of a year before the gratuitous invasion of Iraq, along with others I wrote often about the real neocon plan, the secret one not disclosed to the American people. It involved the use of Iraq as the U.S. political and military base in the Middle East, dictation of terms to surrounding nations, protection of our oil dependencies, long term occupation, and the construction of permanent military bases. All of this would be administered by a proconsul of Roman proportions, safely sequestered behind a multi-billion dollar fortress now known as the Green Zone.

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Defense Authorization Bill, including Section 1222 prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq, with the now customary "signing statement" declaring that he has no intention of enforcing the law of the land, including this provision, though bound by oath and Constitution to do so.

To seal the deal, with the expectation of binding future presidential successors, Mr. Bush and Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki are in the process of negotiating a "status of forces agreement" that would commit the U.S. military to combat any internal or external factions the Iraqi government deemed a threat. This represents a one-directional security treaty cloaked in the form of an agreement not subject to Senate ratification. And it guarantees U.S. involvement in age-old Iraqi sectarian conflict for decades to come.

As John Isaacs, the knowledgeable director of the Council for a Livable World has noted, this "ignores the 1969 National Commitments Resolution which holds that assisting a foreign country through the 'use of Armed Forces' is a 'national commitment' that requires a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution (of Congress)."

Now Congress must hold hearings not only on the legal implications of this major end run of the Constitutional process but also on the current status and planned expenditure on permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The costs to the American taxpayers, who the Republicans constantly say they care about, of a fifty year American presence in Iraq will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to say the potential tens of thousands of American casualties ("casualty;" killed or wounded).

Of course, the next Democratic president can simply cancel this back-door deal. But Karl Rove, Jr., will have those pictures of half-finished bases to use in future elections to prove the Democrats soft on terrorism. By the way, al Qaeda still represents less than ten percent of the attacks still underway in Iraq. The rest are still carried out by sectarian tribes, clans, and gangs. But Mr. Bush still finds it politically profitable to call them all "al Qaeda."

Though the press doesn't seem interested in finding out, my guess is that the bases now under construction are garrisons outside the cities. They will be fortresses in the desert reminiscent of French fortresses in the jungles of Indochina. Future occupying troops will provide target practice for mortar and rocket attacks for decades to come. Thus does one empire repeat the folly of another.

Scarborough: McCain’s Platform Is ‘Less Jobs And More Wars’

Scarborough: McCain’s Platform Is ‘Less Jobs And More Wars’

During the coverage of this evening’s Florida primary results, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough discussed the impact of John McCain’s victory with Pat Buchanan. The Republican establishment will rally around McCain and say “he’s the guy,” Buchanan said, but he cautioned that McCain’s vision for America was foreboding.

“What does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re gonna have a lot more wars,” Buchanan said of McCain. Scarborough remarked that McCain’s “inviting” presidential platform for the fall consists of “less jobs and more wars”:

BUCHANAN: Here’s a guy, basically, what does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re gonna have a lot more wars.

SCARBOROUGH: We’re gonna start a lot of wars! He has promised, for the record Keith, John McCain’s platform — and it certainly looks inviting for the fall — he has promised less jobs and more wars. Now that’s something we can all rally behind.

Watch it:

While campaigning in Michigan earlier this month, McCain said some Michigan industries cannot be resurrected. “I’ve got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back,” he said.

And just this weekend, McCain told a crowd of supporters, “There’s going to be other wars. … I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias writes, “Oddly, though, McCain keeps picking up the votes of Republican primary voters disgruntled with the Iraq War despite being, in reality, the candidate most fanatically devoted to the cause.” More here.

Bush to pawn Iraq occupation off on the next president

Bush redefining Iraq role, next president must pay for it

While planning a redefinition of the US role in Iraq, the White House isn't seeking the funds to pay for it, leaving an unknown and potentially onerous situation for President Bush's successor to navigate.

The White House has confirmed that its new budget, to be submitted in February, will reverse last year’s policy of providing a full year of funding for the war in Iraq, “leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009,” the Politico reported on Wednesday.

Last year’s budget, unveiled soon after Democrats took control of Congress, was explicit in requesting a full year’s worth of funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new budget, the Politico notes, returns to the adminstration’s prior practice of "request[ing] only incremental ‘bridge’ funding,” and “won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009."

President Bush’s term in office ends on Jan. 20, 2009.

This reversal in requesting war funding is concurrent with an effort by the White House to remake the terms of the US military commitment in Iraq. The Washington Post reported on Thursday on a Democratic pushback against the "White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government," with key Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." The proposed security agreement would replace the current United Nations mandate authorizing the US presence in Iraq, which is set to expire on December 31, 2008.

According to conservative scholar Michael Rubin, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, the details of the proposed security agreement "remain unclear." Rubin said, "The proposed agreement could take many forms and, indeed, could be a package of multiple agreements, ranging from a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to economic development packages to basing agreements, to a formal defense treaty." Less unclear are estimates by Congressional staffers of both parties that the ‘bridge-funding’ request will total "between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years," according to the Politico.

"[B]y failing to spell out a full-year funding request, the administration will be effectively leaving office without ensuring the money is in place to sustain that U.S. commitment," the Politico reported.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) convened a hearing on Wednesday on the proposed force agreement. "He dismissed the contention that the proposal is routine," The Post reported, "Saying that administration officials declined to explain themselves before his Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

"'We don't trust this administration,' he said, suggesting that at first glance, the scope of the proposed agreement goes well beyond

Southern Iraq "Close To Mayhem"

Southern Iraq "Close To Mayhem"

Murders, Beheadings, Militias Belie Brit Claims Of Stability

Kissinger Associates Managing Director, L. Paul Bremer, starts the Osama story on 9/11

Kissinger Associates Managing Director, L. Paul Bremer, starts the Osama story on 9/11

from brasscheck tv...

Mission Accomplished

In the early hours right after the 9/11 attacks, Paul Bremer appeared on NBC suggesting that Osama bin Laden was responsible. He was one of the first to float the name.

What Bremer failed to mention is that as he appeared on television calmly speculating about who was responsible, 1,700 of the employees the company he worked for were "missing" as a result of the attack on the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

It later turned out that over 200 were killed, one of the biggest losses of any organization that day.

Two years later, Bush put Bremer in charge of rebuilding Iraq.

There he decided against the advice of all military and diplomatic experts to disband Iraq's army and put 400,000 armed and trained and then-cooperative soldiers in the street without any means of support and a major grudge against the US.

Bremer...on TV right after 9/11 starting the Osama did it myth and then in Iraq guaranteeing a massive and deadly insurgency.

What was Bremer doing before 9/11?

Among other things, he was the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates.

You know, Henry Kissinger. The former Harvard Professor turned adviser to the Rockefeller family who became Nixon's foreign affairs adviser during the Vietnam War which Nixon extended for eight years beyond LBJs term.

Still think the "botched" occupation of Iraq was a mistake or a surprise?

Like Vietnam, the Iraq War is intended to bleed America dry
financially and isolate it diplomatically - and the very same cast of characters have their fingerprints all over it and profiting from it.

But try to find this very basic background information in the news media, mainstream or alternative.

yeah, good luck trying to find a LOT of "very basic background information in the news media, mainstream or alternative"...

‘There is no Iraqi government’

‘There is no Iraqi government’

By: Steve Benen

Six weeks ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said we would see “a major breakthrough” within “weeks” on political reconciliation in Iraq, which he believes is unfolding at “breakneck speed.”

It’s one of those quotes that looks increasingly ridiculous all the time.

A principal architect of Iraq’s interim constitution, who resigned in August as one of the country’s top diplomats, has laid out a devastating critique of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the U.S. occupation, telling NBC News that, functionally, “there is no Iraqi government.”

The diplomat, Feisal Amin Istrabadi, said in his first interview since stepping down as Iraq’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations that “this government has got to go.”

Istrabadi said the Iraqi government itself is an illusion, stocked with incompetent administrators who had helped bring about “chaos and instability.” He pointed to the Health Ministry, dominated by the Mahdi Army militia. “You cannot have this sectarian doling out of the Cabinet ministries,” Istrabadi said. “You’ve got to bring in competent technocrats to try to run those ministries, the service ministries.”

This guy is clearly not on the same page as the Bush administration.

Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

September 28th, 2007

Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

By: Nicole Belle

Download (1871) | Play (1907) Download (777) | Play (940)

How much money does Bush think a US soldier’s life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies’ soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth?

As we’re finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,” yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.

Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?

British General Blasts Bush On Iraq Failures

British General Blasts Bush On Iraq Failures

By: Logan Murphy @ 5:48 PM - PDT

From Meteor Blades at Daily Kos:

What? Yet another general has added his voice to the crew who have taken the Cheney-Bush regime to task for botching postwar operations in Iraq? Yep. This time, it’s not American generals like Wes Clark, Greg Newbold, Paul Eaton, John Riggs, Paul Van Riper, Charles Swannack or John Batiste doing the pounding. It’s “Macho Jacko,” General Sir Michael Jackson, who ran the British Army in March 2003 when Iraq was invaded. He retired last year and began writing an autobiography, Soldier, which is being serialized in Britain’s Daily Telegraph. (Hat tip to Magnifico.)

According to the Telegraph’s story:

His attack - the first time he has revealed the depth of his anger towards the US administration - highlights the deep-seated tension between the British command and the Pentagon during the build-up to and the aftermath of the Iraq campaign in 2003.

Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was “one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq”.

Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam’s regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.

In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is “inadequate” because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy. Read more…

AP: Iraq Body Count Running Double 2006 Pace

AP

AP: Iraq Body Count Running Double 2006 Pace

Iraqi Prime Minister Blasts American Critics

Iraqi Prime Minister Blasts American Critics

By: Logan Murphy

AP Via Yahoo:

Iraq’s prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country “can find friends elsewhere.”

Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders’ inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline al-Maliki.

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people,” he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.

“Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,” al-Maliki said. Read more…

Roadside Bomb Kills Second Iraqi Governor In Nine Days

AP

Roadside Bomb Kills Second Iraqi Governor In Nine Days

Froomkin: Dick Cheney’s Secret Plan To Invade Iran

Froomkin: Dick Cheney’s Secret Plan To Invade Iran

By: Logan Murphy @ 4:03 PM -

Via The Washington Post:

At yesterday’s press conference, President Bush announced that he had put Iran on notice: “One of the main reasons that I asked [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that kill Americans in Iraq.”

Describing Iran as “a very troubling nation right now,” largely because of its nuclear program, Bush warned its leaders that “when we catch you playing a non-constructive role [in Iraq] there will be a price to pay.”

So what price is Bush prepared to exact? Is this saber-rattling a harbinger of war? And perhaps most to the point: What is Vice President Cheney up to?

Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef write for McClatchy Newspapers today that “the president’s top aides have been engaged in an intense internal debate over how to respond to Iran’s support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy. . . . Read more…

Gates says that even though you can’t trust anything we’ve ever said—Here’s Petraeus!

Gates says that even though you can’t trust anything we’ve ever said—Here’s Petraeus!

By: John Amato @

Gates made an appearance on MTP Sunday and parroted the same propaganda line that O’Hanlon and Kristol are using—it’s just that he can’t deliver them quite as effectively. As Timmeh notes, everything this administration and their puppet propagandists have feed the American people about the war has been WRONG—so why should we trust you now? He dryly replies that everybody loves Gen Petraeus and the wooden wonder Ambassador Crocker.

Download (1727) | Play (1351) Download (1007) | Play (732) (full transcript)

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned that we misunderestimated some of the divisions between the factions of the government, the Shiites and the Sunnis. Mr. Secretary, for Americans watching today, many are saying to themselves, “The administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, wrong about the size of the force necessary to occupy Iraq, wrong about the costs of the war, wrong about Shiite and Sunni division. Why should we have any confidence in anything they say about the future of Iraq?”

SEC’Y GATES: Well, I think that what we should have confidence in is the evaluation that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus are going to make in early September. These men have been on the ground for quite some time now. They are the best of our professionals. They will look at this. Their report—certainly General Petraeus’ part of it—will be examined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent to me and then to the president. So it, it won’t be entirely General Petraeus; it’ll be mostly General Petraeus. But what we’re trying to do is get an honest an evaluation of this situation as we possibly can so that the president and the Congress can decide how to move forward.

I seem to remember a certain General that wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post right before the ‘04 election about how great the Iraq military was stepping up…Who was it again? Oh, right…Army lieutenant General Petraeus

Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.

Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight — so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well…read on