Scrubbing the stink off Bush's Legacy

Former Bush administration official, Nicole Wallace, discusses the lack of WMD in Iraq. She thinks the whole world is as clueless as Lawrence O'Donnell who allows her to spew a boatlaod of lies. Entire video is here. The pertinent 30 second clip:





But EVERYone wanted to go to oust Saddam Hussein, so how can we blame our President for making a greivous error?

Unfortunately, Gerhard Schroeder, former German chancellor, says "Bush is not telling the truth."

Germany did not support the invasion of Iraq and did not furnish military personnel or materiel. Furthermore, "the invasion was strongly opposed by US allies including Canada, Germany, France and New Zealand...", and according to an Australian Senator who served in the Prime Minister's cabinet in 2002: "The debacle that ensued in Iraq has made the vital campaign in Afghanistan more protracted and more difficult." Australia entered the Iraq war only reluctantly.

And Russia!!??? Who ever knows what Russia actually supports, but I would doubt they are looking after the best interests of the USA, a notion that is absurd for Nicole Wallace to imply. In fact, reports came out after the Iraq invasion that Russia had divulged our war plans to Saddam Hussein: "Word of Russian-Iraqi collaboration came as part of an analysis by U.S. Joint Forces Command..."

As former Bush staffers hit the airwaves to rehabilitate the legacy of their administration, the stories will be nuts. Unfortunately, the sleepy pundit class fail to keep them honest.

From One Conservative Viewpoint: Iraq War = Epic Fail

None other than Bryan Fischer from the American Family Association has said that our soldiers died for nothing.

It grieves me to the bottom of my soul to think of the soldiers who bravely gave their last full measure of devotion in such a misbegotten cause. They served bravely and well; it was their leadership that let them down.

All this is due to President Bush’s naive short-sightedness about the true nature of Islam and what it does to the human spirit. I believe him to be an honest and decent man, but deceived and foolish when it came to Islam.

He genuinely seemed to believe that Islam is a religion of peace which had been hijacked by evil men. The truth is the other way round. Islam is a barbaric religion of violence and war. The only hijacking that’s been done is by those trying to fool people into thinking it’s something benign

...

[T]he Spirit of the Lord is absent in Islamic lands, and the dark spirit that animates Islam has extinguished the spirit of liberty in those lands and in the hearts of their people. Their spiritual DNA has been altered in such a horrible way that what they hunger for is domination, destruction, and the death of the infidels. It is impossible for such a people to harbor a thirst for freedom apart from a massive spiritual awakening represented by an embrace of Christianity.

No, it is impossible to build a free nation on a platform of Islam. It was foolish and expensive even to try.

Fischer says America has offended God by creating a new Islamic Republic in Iraq which, "without the stabilizing values and presence of the Prince of Peace," will ultimately collapse.

My revelation from the sky wizard is right, yours is wrong! So there.

(h/t PFAW)

US General forced to apologize to Iraqi leader

Wow.  The highly regarded US General in charge of operations in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno (at right), has been forced to back down on accusations he has made regarding the conduct of the Iraqi parliament.   The US is in the midst of negotiations with Iraq Prime Minister Maliki about the occupation and Odierno accused the Iranian government of bribing Iraqi parliamentarians to vote against the negotiated settlement.

Maybe it's just me, but since when do US military generals apologize to foreign political leaders?  Somehow I cannot imagine Ike or Douglas MacArthur kow-towing to their Japanese or German counterparts during our post-World War II occupation.  Could you see Pershing apologizing to the leader of the Weimar Republic in 1921?

I cannot argue the merits of General Odierno's accusation and, frankly, the truthfulness of his remarks matters little to the situation.  Perhaps he should not have said them, true; but he damn well doesn't have to apologize for making them.  If they are true: if Iran is insinuating itself into the operation of the Iraqi Parliament, then the taxpayers of the United States who are paying for this charade and the citizens of the United States who have mandated this military operation certainly are entitled to know the details of General Odierno's allegations.

Where is John McCain's banner of "Country First" now?

This Iraq business is like nothing I could ever imagine.  In the agreement being negotiated, US soldiers and contractors will be subject to Iraqi law and Iraqi courts if accused of certain heinous crimes.  Iraq, a nation that has no history of any distinguishable form of justice, will now have tha ability to try, convict and imprison our soldiers.  Unbelieveable.

This is not to say that General Odierno may have been out of bounds with his comments about Iran, and this is not to say that US soldiers do not commit crimes from time to time.  Such a negotiated agreement begs the question that if Iraq has such national civic pride that could insulted by such a remark, and if Iraq has such a stable justice system that can determine the guilt or innocence of foreign nationals, then certainly they have the tools to defend their own borders and police their own streets.  How do they benefit from having the Leviathan military of the US in their country if we are such a distraction to their civic structure and their relations with their neighbor?

I am not being facetious or rhetorical.  This type of story emphasizes the fact that the US military has become an impediment to the normal conduct of the Iraqi government, as normal as such a nascent government's conduct can be, and it is indeed time for us to leave.

The US military is not serving the national interests of the US, if they ever were; and now it has become abundantly clear that we are not serving in the best interests of the Iraq nation either.

Time to get out.  Now.

Ike was Right-- Don't Trust Anyone

Eisenhower warned us to beware of the military industrial complex almost 50 years ago and now we have all his unheeded warnings come to raw fruition. The New York Times reported Sunday on the multitude of retired military officers who have acted as television "analysts" during the run-up and early stages of the Iraq war and occupation. According to emails recently released only after NYT sued the Defense Department through the Freedom of Information Act, many of these analysts were also on the payroll of defense contractors in addition to being wined and dined by the Pentagon in order to be fed pro-war propaganda-- which some have conceded after the fact was misrepresented-- as well being paid by the networks for their appearances.

This should make your blood boil.

From the NYT:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Critics I have read in various comments sections have made remarks about the veracity of the NYT, and I will be gracious enough to give voice to those misgivings. However, the damning accusations by the Times article, if untrue, would surely elicit defamation lawsuits by the networks and retired officers. These retired military men are 1) getting tax-supported pensions, 2) being paid by main stream media outlets for appearances as supposedly objective observers 3) receiving payment from defense industry lobbyist firms or the companies directly, and in one instance-- General Marks-- is a CEO of a defense contracting company who was actively negotiating contracts with the Pentagon while he is beating the war drums on CNN as a paid "analyst", and 4) accepting tax-supported air fares and dinners to receive talking points directly from Donald Rumsfeld from 2003 to 2006.

Nobody is innocent in this affair if the NYT's piece is to be believed. The networks never questioned the "analysts" about industry ties and accepted their "analysis" as objective. The retired military lost Pentagon access if they failed to promote the war strongly enough, which would have threatened their lucrative jobs lobbying and negotiating defense contracts. So they continued to dance.

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said.

[snip]

CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.

General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.

“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.

In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at [defense contractor] McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said....

...General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.

Whew! That makes me feel a whole lot better. A guy whose salary of several million dollars depends on the occurrence of a war goes on television to use Rumsfeld's talking points to "sell" the war to me-- but he says he can separate all these competing conflicts. Sure, I believe him.

How about this... instead of interviewing Mark McGuire and Frank Thomas about whether they juiced in order to hit home runs, what if our astute Congress hauled these snake oil salesmen before the hot lights and cameras and grilled them about the obvious conflicts involved in the orchestration of this war? Is that too much to ask? Get the retired generals and colonels, but also the Pentagon officials who planned the dog and pony shows, and most importantly the network executives who either willingly took part or failed in their obligation as purveyors of information. I want to see them at least squirm.

We have perpetrated a criminal war, slaughtered civilians, maimed and killed our own soldiers, exhausted our treasury, empowered terrorist leaders, destabilized the world's supply of oil-- and why? Because craven "analysts" sold us this war and occupation for apparent financial gain and the press allowed it.

Perhaps the retired military guys are true believers who somehow feel that a great service is being done by our war machine and defense contractors, but that does not release them from the responsibility of submitting possible conflicts of interests. Fox News I understand: they are unrepentant warmongers and have been from day one; we all know their "analysis" has always been a commercial for Rummy's magical mystery tour. But what the fuck was going on at CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS?

No hell is hot enough enough for this lot.

Option 4: The Heavy Lifting that Didn't Happen

I've been thinking about the old joke about the man going into the service station for directions and the man behind behind the counter says, “You can't get there from here.”

Thus, I'll discuss Option 4. To form a free, peaceful and democratic society in Iraq the necessary components may be lacking. As House has wisely surmised, they would have stumbled on a democratic system by now if they were so inclined.

The US mission in Iraq has inexorably creeped from a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction into a nation-building exercise that was destined for failure from the outset. The military won a decided victory over Saddam's Republican Guard within days and US led inspection teams ruled out the expected stockpiles of biochemical weapons within a few weeks, and everyone knew that Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

So now we are entrenched militarily in a region that is increasingly unstable and no discernible realistic goal has been put forth. A comprehensive solution would have entailed political, diplomatic and economic phases in addition to the military phase. Unfortunately (an appropriate term in reference to Iraq), the time to have begun the political, diplomatic and economic parts of the plan was either before or during the military phase. Can we expect our diplomatic allies to sign on to the mission now? Can we expect the warring factions within Iraq to come to the table for a political solution as was done in Dayton? Can we expect the economy of Iraq to be self-sufficient any time soon? Hardly on all three accounts.

Having said that, I'll present the plan put forth by Michael O'Hanlon (at right) and Edward Joseph from the Brookings Institution who are calling for a partition, or federalization, of Iraq as was done in the Balkans in the 1990's. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and others have called for similar partition plans as well. Obviously, these regions are different enough to obviate direct correlations between their solutions. Also, the Iraq war has been so mismanaged for so long that the chances of a peaceful outcome are vanishingly small.

O'Hanlon recognizes that Iraq, like the Balkans, consists of distinct subregions dominated by ethnic and/or religious majorities. These subregions should be allowed to exist in semi-autonomous states with self-rule based on their unique characteristics. Unlike Bosnia, however, Iraq has an economy welded to the delivery of one thing-- oil-- and that for a successful economic plan, collusion among the sectarian factions in Iraq must take place to exploit the export of oil in order to benefit all the players. Without a political truce among the factions, the economy of Iraq will falter.

Unfortunately (yes that word is used a lot in relation to Iraq), the circumstances in Iraq have not ever been amenable to a peaceful coexistence between Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds. Only with a dictatorial ruler has there been enough order to keep the oil flowing. Scowcroft and Poppy Bush were wise enough to know that in 1991, thus they allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf War I. And if the machinations of full scale diplomatic, political, economic and military nation-building were to occur, the work necessary should have been done in advance and by an administration more competent than the current one. Failure was predetermined in 2003.

O'Hanlon, however, believes that we could attempt a political solution even at this late date by bringing the major players together, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd, for a summit to iron out differences and come to some accord, as was done in Dayton. So far, however, no inkling of such a gambit has ever been put forth. Furthermore, strong militia leaders such Moqtada al-Sadr and perhaps even al Qaeda leaders would demand to be at the table, which of course would be a nonstarter and could kybosh any deal. Sadr's militia reportedly numbers 60,000 and is fully armed.

In order to increase the slim chance of lasting success for O'Hanlon's political plan, a diplomatic phase would need to be instituted among our allies which would necessarily include UN, NATO and especially Arab states such as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Having a true multinational force in place to keep the peace for the long haul would do wonders to instill a sense stability and commitment to the educated moderate citizens in the region. Unfortunately (there's that word again), many of the educated and productive moderate Iraqis have left in the continuing refugee migration of 1000 people per day. This brain drain will have lasting negative consequences on the social development of Iraq for generations to come. And with Great Britain reducing their presence to 4500 from 7000, chances of increasing an allied presence in the Iraq quagmire is zero.

My point in the previous discussion of Option III was that if, as Bush is determined to do, we are to entertain a purely military solution to Iraq, and ignore our allies' opinions, and pay for it by ourselves, then we had better have a big freakin' army. Only by having a huge overwhelming military presence to institute martial law for perhaps a decade can we have any hope of making up for the deficiencies of the political, economic and diplomatic parts of the plan. And nobody would be able to guarantee that even then we would be successful. In short, the 21,500 planned by Bush is way too little and way too late.

I admit that going through these perverse mental gymnastics is pointless. Bush will do what Bush will do as Decider-in-Chief, and it will likely make no rational sense. To speak of “solutions” in Iraq is specious. I'm also safe in that there is no way I will be proven wrong since Bush is unlikely to engage in the heavy lifting needed to institute anything so sensible as a comprehensive plan as Clinton had done in Bosnia, and the American people are wise enough to eschew any military draft for Bush in Iraq.

Option III: Win this Stinking War

I never liked this war. From the beginning I was part of the vocal minority that said it was wrong and it would not serve our interests. Many friends and family members were either quietly acquiescent or engagingly supportive of the war, but I find nobody now in support of continuing Bush's policies. I will present a responsible plan-- the only plan-- to win the war in Iraq.

Iraq is not Vietnam. It's leagues worse mainly because of its geopolitical importance. I respect Cindy Sheehan and have had the honor to meet her and shake her hand in recognition of her grief and the sacrifice of her son for my perceived safety. I am thankful that she has been calling attention to the failures of the president, and doing so all the while taking heat from opponents and grieving a terrible loss. She is a special lady. But I disagree with the current anti-war movement which is calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I may be alone, but I believe that we have a moral imperative to fix the problem we created. It's a bummer being part of a representative democracy, but as such we have to take the bad with the good, and the current bad is that we are responsible for our leaders' mistakes.

In previous columns, I have presented two options in Iraq: the McCain Plan of adding 20-40,000 more troops in an effort to “win” the war and the Hagel and Murtha Plan to pull out in a “phased redeployment”, which has also been given tacit approval by a number of military leaders.

Today I'll provide a plan that I have not heard before, but one that was inspired by listening and reading realist foreign policy thinkers, notably Lt Col Brent Scowcroft, previous National Security Advisor under George H.W. Bush, Dennis Ross who served under Poppy Bush and Clinton, Kenneth Pollack from the Brookings Institution , Sen Joe Biden (D-DE), and the infamous Henry Kissinger as well as other stalwarts from the Cold War era.

Granted, I have no idea if Pollack, Biden, Ross and Scowcroft would have any agreement with my plan; I only contend that this plan is inspired by their thoughts. None of these men has ever broached any type of comprehensive strategy as far as I know.

Option III is to really win the war in Iraq. Losing Iraq and watching it devolve into lawless theocratic enclaves is simply not an option. Unlike Vietnam and Korea, Iraq has significant natural resources that are integral to the world's economy. Failure in this war would not only limit exports from Iraq, but would also destabilize other oil producing nations in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Furthermore, abdication of our responsibility in the plight of Iraq and Iraqis would signal to our other allies that we have neither the will nor the ability to follow through on our endeavors. The ramifications of losing Iraq are daunting and would affect every level of our culture and security for generations.

Many on the left have bemoaned the lack of a realistic goal for “victory” in Iraq. Nonsense. The goal is to have a stable government that exports oil. Period. The astute observer would then ask, you mean like Iraq had under Saddam Hussein? The answer is yes, but we can't go back to that model mainly because Saddam was executed last week. Neither could we put in power a puppet “Shah of Iraq” at this juncture with so much attention focused on US involvement. Ahhhh, the 1950's and 1990's were such simpler times. So now we must do the heavy lifting of nurturing some type of representative government(s) in Iraq either as a single federal republic or a combination of states based on sectarian or ethnic preferences.

The plan I propose is to treat Iraq like it was Bosnia writ large. In many ways the regions are similar in that they are marked by sectarian strife, porous borders and historically have been ruled by strongmen. The difference is that Iraq is now much less stable than the Balkans ever were, and Iraq's neighborhood is the largest supplier of crude oil, which runs the world's economies. Many naysayers castigated the Clinton administration for getting involved in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and many predicted a Vietnam-like quagmire at the time. If the Balkans can be quelled, peaceably occupied and self-governed, then perhaps Iraq could as well. The difference has been the US' inept involvement in the destabilization of Iraq, and the completely incompetent diplomatic, political and military conduct of the Iraq war versus the near-perfect execution of the Bosnian and Yugoslavian war plans.

Is it too late to turn Iraq around? I don't know, but if there is any hope, then the way to do it is simple (although not easy.) Simply put, overwhelming military presence enjoined by astute diplomacy and followed by economic exploitation of the region's assets. While I have real doubts about the current administration being able to perform on all these fronts, I will present my solution as a best case scenario.

Go heavy or go home. The problem with the McCain Plan is that 20,000 troops are not nearly enough-- too little too late would spell disaster. Due to Cheney's dithering, we are left with at best one more shot to get this right, and to send too few troops would be disastrous, just as it was in 2003. Is it possible to send too many soldiers?

To keep order in the Balkans, it currently takes about one armed guard for every 50 citizens, which would translate to about 150,000 soldiers in Baghdad proper. Given that the city has been allowed to become an armed guerrilla camp over the past 40 months, I would add 50,000 to that number to get a total 200,000 US soldiers to patrol Baghdad streets. Currently we have about 90,000 plus 65,000 inadequately trained Iraqi soldiers who are often an impediment to the peace. Therefore, we would have to immediately add 110,000 US soldiers into Baghdad in order to institute marshal law and establish the peace.

Outside of Baghdad and Anbar province, the outlying areas are relatively peaceful and would require a less dense military support, perhaps 100,000 for a troop strength needed as an occupying force of approximately 300,000.

Border security and forces needed to train Iraqi's would equal another 100,000 troops, for a grand total of 400,000 men and women active in theater. We currently have 140,000 in country, not including the multinational force in Afghanistan. For that many active soldiers, a total US military of perhaps 2.5 million from our current 1 million would be required.

Nothing is to say that all these soldiers would need to be American. Many of the border and training duties could be taken over immediately by the UN and NATO peacekeepers and preferably a strong presence from Muslim nations such as Turkey and Egypt. Unfortunately, our diplomatic standing under Bush's leadership is so poor that garnering help, even for non-combat positions, would be a challenge. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, we should plan on bearing the brunt of the military duties.

The US military would need to grow by at least 200% in the immediate future. If this seems daunting, then we should remember that in World War II, with the US population one-third of today's, we fielded a similarly numbered military that fought in two separate theaters in deadly battles such as Iwo Jima where 20,000 men were lost in a week's time. Most of these men and women were trained in a very short time frame after the December 7, 1941 surprise attack. Can it be done? Yes, if we have the resolve and leadership to institute a draft.

Like World War II, taxes need to be raised, every able man and woman who is military aged needs to be in uniform, industries would need to be diverted to the war effort, the citizens have to be involved. A real war effort requires sacrifice by every facet of society and 400,000 soldiers in country. The Bush twins and Pierce Bush in uniform would be a great start. I have no idea what President Bush will present this week as his latest “plan”, but if it is anything short of complete national mobilization, then we need to impeach him, convict him and jail him for high crimes against humanity, gross negligence and perhaps mental instability endangering our national interest. I may be alone, but as a citizen I believe it's our duty to our nation and the world.

A majority of Americans were inexplicably supportive of the Iraq war in the beginning, but support was strong even after the facts became apparent that our president had cherry-picked intelligence and was careless in his strategy. The public sentiment turned south only when we realized that our leaders decided to lose the war. I say “decided” very carefully, but that is what I mean. They did not choose the strategy and tactics that would have led to success. The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force was ignored. The forethought of establishing order and securing borders was lacking. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith recently opined, the negligence “may be criminal.” I would subtract the “may be.”

I find it odd that many Bush supporters and those who acquiesced to the Iraq war on either moral or pragmatic concerns are now quick to relinquish their support. This show isn't interesting anymore, so let's simply change the channel? And by “acquiesce” I mean anyone who either voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 or failed to vote against him in 2004 when his incompetence was clearly apparent. He is our president, and whether you agree with him or not, whether you voted for him or not, we are all responsible for his actions. Although I have never agreed with Bush or his war, and certainly would never have voted for him, I realize that we have a moral imperative to attempt the establishment of order in Iraq (and Afghanistan) going forward.

If we walk away from Iraq, then what? We go on with our lives as if nothing happened? We buy our plasma TV's, vacation in Mexico and turn off CNN when they report the Cambodia-style bloodletting in Iraq? Then what? Brent Scowcroft, who does not have a reputation as being especially alarmist, argues that losing Iraq would destabilize the entire region, particularly Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's tenuous oligarchies and “probably we'd see $200 per barrel oil.” Such a high oil price does not simply mean that we all drive Civics and wear fluffy sweaters, it means that the entire world's economy comes to a screeching halt. Screeching. In our lifetime, we have never seen a real worldwide economic collapse, of which the Great Depression would be a mild example. Wars, dirty bombs, unabated pestilence, gnashing of teeth, etc, etc are all real possibilities.

True, we could have avoided the war in Iraq and put the $400 billion toward alternative energy technology and homeland security, but we chose not to. True, we could have promoted democratic transitions in more stable allies like Qatar, Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but we chose not to. True, we could have corrected the historic injustices perpetrated on Palestinians by us and our chief ally, but we chose not to. Instead we chose to sheepishly follow our maladroit leaders into this unfortunate Iraq escapade. And then we re-elected the numbskull.

The primary problem with the Iraq war is that it was started in the first place. The problem with Option III is that it was not done four years ago, as General Shinseki and other military thinkers had presented at the time. If this had been instituted in 2003, we likely would not be having this dire discussion, and loud-mouthed critics like me would have been silenced. If we had a president that could strategize war, inspire confidence among our allies and unite the American people, then perhaps we wouldn't be having this dire discussion. The current problem is that we are 4 years into a losing war, the American people are inattentive to any talk of further escalation and our leadership continues to be stunningly inept.

Nobody is reminding the American people that losing Iraq has real consequences... lasting worldwide consequences. And we need to get over this silliness that goals are unattainable in Iraq. Democrat, Republican, Red state, Blue state, Activist, Inattentive... we need to (finally) do the heavy lifting-- ALL of us. In short, we need to grow up. But will we?

Bush is our president, our responsibility is to clean up his mess. But will we?

Quiet Please, Terrorists at Work

Keeping tabs on the Iraq war takes its toll, both in time and in soul-sucking anguish. The events that currently take place on a daily basis, from Baghdad car-bombs to verbal dissembling by our leaders, rise to a higher level of outrage with each passing day. I lack the available hours as well as the fortitude to dwell on these issues, but I feel compelled to add a few thoughts.

I'll just give a sample of the bullshit we endure. From the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. military officials and diplomats want Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states to recognize Maliki government, send ambassadors to Baghdad and forgive more than $40 billion in Iraqi debt. Among Sunni states, only Egypt has sent an ambassador, and he was assassinated.

The problem: Most Arab states, an official says, “see the current government as…an Iranian stooge.”

How can Condi Rice approach the Arab world with a straight face and ask for their economic aid in Iraq? Condi lecturing Arab states to “do the right thing” is like The Donald judging whether some beauty queen bimbo would make a good role model for our teens. On a human level I am embarrassed for Rice, but as a citizen who pays her salary, I am frothing in disgust.

Or, how about this tidbit? Washington Post:

Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is: We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 24 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

“An interesting construct” indeed. Friends and family of mine who voted for Bush never mention their thoughts on the president these days. I have made a point to refrain from talking politics on any level just to see if the subject will be broached. It never is. No intellectual discussion of nascent democracy, no talk of “just war” theory, no long diatribes on our vulnerability to terror. The constant drone of death in our names quietly continues. Honestly, I long for those care-free days when the nominal conservatives had the time and energy to fill my email box with Clinton blow-job jokes and Hillary cartoons.

Where is the outrage? New York Times:

First there was the “mission accomplished” banner. Then, last year, there was a “plan for victory” and, just this past October, the presidential assertion, “Absolutely, we’re winning.” Now that President Bush is seeking “a new way forward” in Iraq, he is embracing a new verbal construction to describe progress there: “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

“We're not winning. We're not losing?” Somebody actually said this? The president actually said this? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs actually said this? I wasn't quite conscious during the lies of Vietnam, but I cannot imagine that BS being any deeper than what we hear today.

The sad part is that over 30% of the American people still believe Bush is doing a good job as president. I'm not sure Bush even believes that anymore. The other sad part is that previous Bush supporters have checked out. Their attention has been diverted away from the insoluble problem of Iraq and onto other fatuous concerns, like whether to buy a Wii or a Playstation, which plasma TV is the best, or whether the stock market is too risky to add capital.

These past 70 months, my confidence in our nation and our political system has been rocked. Never would I have imagined that a meathead like Bush would be elected twice, and then his supporters completely ignore the disaster that has become his presidency.

The question, and one I'll never get an adequate answer to, is why anybody would have voted for Bush/ Cheney in the first place, but especially in 2004 when it had become abundantly clear that Bush is a pernicious imbecile and that Cheney is a psychopath. What possible motivation would compel someone to vote for these guys? What policy was so important that they needed to spend four more years in office? What fear was so great that Al Gore or John Kerry, both decent honorable and intelligent men, weren't satisfactory candidates? The Supreme Court? Tax cuts? Abortion? Gay marriage? Gun rights? What?

My feeling is that anyone who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 may have been misguided, but anyone who voted for him 2004 did nothing less than commit "citizenship malpractice." They should think long and hard about why they cast their ballot; they should ask friends and families to help them work this through; they should perhaps seek counseling. Above all, anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 should refrain from casting any more ballots in any election for any office until they have figured out exactly how on earth they could have made such a huge blunder.

I'm not being too dramatic when I say that when I realize what my country has done in my name, it breaks my heart. No matter the stated intention-- to bring democracy, to save the Iraqis from Saddam, to protect us from WMD's and terrorism-- the Iraq war is a fool's errand perpetrated by a fool, a fool that we knowingly elected and re-elected. We are all responsible. We are all murderers. We are all incompetent. Blaming Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is the easy way out; we all should have known better. Democrats should have been more skeptical, the media should have been more questioning, opponents should have been more vocal, I should have been more eloquent in my castigation.

The days that my blog remains empty are not to be construed as days that my conscience is not troubled by the virulence inflicted by my country. My heart aches daily.

Iraq Quagmire: Option I

The Iraq Study Group is busily putting the finishing touches on their final report that is supposedly going to save Boy Bush's hide and his presidency. Usually when such a council is set up it is purely for political cover, in other words the president has already decided on “the plan”, and the expert panel is merely configured to add credibility to “the plan.” In this case, however, I don't think Bush is pursuing the panel's advice for the expediency of political cover. I believe Bush really doesn't know what to do. We'll help him consider his options.

George W. Bush deserves our compassion. Seeing him recently meeting with Vietnamese leaders I was struck by how vulnerable and pathetic he looked. His hair grayer, his brow more furrowed, Bush did not seem to have the same irrepressible joviality. He apparently saw no irony in bluntly stating that Iraq is no Vietnam while being entertained in a beautifully manicured palace in the heart of Hanoi. He's right, Iraq is leagues worse.

What to do in Iraq? There are really only two courses to consider: Go heavy, or go home. The American people are weary of this debacle and the president has been derelict in his duty of planning and fighting this war. The time for making this decision is years late. Be that as it may, when the ISG comes out with their recommendations, the president should not expect a silver bullet. There is none, and none will be forthcoming.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has recently taken the Barry Goldwater stance that the USA has a responsibility to the people of Iraq and we should fulfill this obligation by sending more troops in an overwhelming effort to achieve stability. Of course, he conveniently never puts a number on that additional force, but I'm sure it would need to be in the hundreds of thousands. From McCain's recent op-ed:

“We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

They will not be easy to find. We should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps the day after 9/11. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.

It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.”

On one level, I share McCain's sentiment that the Iraqi people deserve our forthright attempt at achieving a livable resolution to the conflict that we started. The question McCain never answers is what it would take to send the necessary troops. The troop levels in Iraq (I'm not even considering the Afghan disaster) have ranged from 125K earlier this year to approximately 145K now after the president canceled the tour leaves of several thousand Marines, National Guard and Army troops. We know this isn't enough to fulfill McCain's plan. The current military has approximately 1 million men and women, of which 1/5 can be deployed at any given time. To get the requisite 400K combat ready soldiers to make up an overwhelming contingent, we would need 2 million active duty. In effect, we would need to double the size of the military immediately, and that would also mean immense outlays for equipment.

Where can McCain get troops? We have already lowered recruitment standards, paid unprecedented sign-on bonuses, and canceled honorable discharges in order to keep men and women in uniform. McCain has no words of advice, except to “ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq.” McCain doesn't answer how many will say, “No, thank you” and how many times will he need to ask that “young Marine” again and again?

In the reality-based world, the only way to acquire enough soldiers to put 400K into Iraq is to dust off the military draft. Indeed, the draft. Literally millions of young men have already signed up for conscription, we already have their names, and the president only has to get the computer to spit out a few hundred thousand random birth dates, and voila! We have a huge frickin' Army. Instantly.

If McCain's stance is actually agreed upon, as long as we are indulging our fantasies, I would add one more recommendation: the only fair thing to do would be to first ask anyone under 30 years-old who voted for Bush in 2004 to do the responsible thing, the patriotic thing, the moral thing. They should be asked to enlist voluntarily and take infantry assignments. If they believe in this war, then we should give them the opportunity to walk the walk.

After all, what would be fair in drafting those who may have voted against this radical administration in the first place? Send them to war? No way. George W. Bush has saved us all from the dreaded weapons of mass destruction, he has bravely rescued Iraq from Saddam, and now our "crusade" has hit a few bumps in the road. Sen McCain is generously offering a solution-- and the very least these young Republicans can do is offer to serve.

Next post, we'll discuss the traitors who want to “cut and run.”