More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

That's the more palatable option, that after years of a failed war, we're going to negotiate with the nutjobs to get them to play nice.
It makes me nauseous.

No wonder Jenna and Babs never signed up to spread the love in the Land of the Two Rivers. Leave it to other people's kids to die for a hoax.

Sounds like "cut and run" to me. Herr Bush fails another one

The Iraq Commission, which will not report until after the elections, might as well call their report "The Murtha Solution".

The whole thing has been a farce from jump street.
Now the old man's buddy's have to step in and fix the pottery that numb nuts smashed. The whole damn thing from beginning to end has been an outrage and sickening. I don't hold out hope for any justice for Jr and his killer friends.

Damn Didn't That Traitor Murtha come Up With This Very Same Plan ?

Hmmmmmm Well I'll Be Damned !!

You'll Hear The NEOCONs Spin This One !

NEOCONs....Come Out And Plaaaaay!

-Sarge

I think they all must have taken the short bus home today.

What did 'we' say months ago- they will spin enough to convince dumb people here (not there) that it's a VICTORY - just like Nixon did.

Baker scares W - he's the ghost of 41 putting him back on the leash - but it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.

But W already has the new word: It's "KINETIC"

Let me say it again: it's his new mantra:

We are KINETIC!

i.e. WE ARE IN MOVEMENT!!!!

So pathetic, as usual it would be funny if it were not so bloody tragic.


VOTE ANY AND ALL REPUBLICANS OUT!!!!

It's the least we can do. From sea to shining sea. OUT!!!!

Kinetic?
1/2 mV^2?

What a rotten deal.

The Commission is reportedly going to recommend courses of action that are much closer to what critics of President Bush have been saying for years. And yet, on up until the November elections, American voters will be deluded by GOP slogans of "no substitute for victory!" and "Democrats want to cut and run!"

The shadows of Vietnam lengthen. Then, as now, the leaders of this country know one thing, but say another in public. Back in 1967, McNamara was telling LBJ that US policy was not succeeding. When Nixon took over, he had all the intelligence that this was the case. But yet, Nixon-Kissinger kept the war going for another four years, and 20,000 US lives. Nixon had resigned in disgrace and it was his successor Ford who had to surrender to reality. The South Vietnamese Government fell in 1975. Four years later, the supposedly monolithic Communists were at each others throats, as the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to fight the Khmer Rouge and the PRC fought a border war with Vietnam in turn. None of the other "dominoes" fell.

Henry the K, the architect of this deceitful Vietnam strategy, which prolonged the chaos for seven more years and arguably cleared the way for the Khmer Rouge by roping neutral Cambodia fully into the war in 1970, is the one Dubya reportedly listens to most.

We shall see. Will Dubya let himself be rescued, once again, from failure by his father's retainers? Or will Dubya continue to work out his Odeipal inner demons by taking the advice of the aging Dr. Strangelove, eager to banish his own ghosts?

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America.


Well duuuuhh! Quel suprise!

The neocons said they were sick of the bullshit Foley scandal and ready to turn their attention back to real issues. But they don't seem all that interested, do they?
Like a 4 year old, I think they got distracted by the flashing lights and bells of the DOW close.

No time to pay attention to the fact that Murtha was right and even Bush's own inner circle knows it.
They're huddled now, trying to figure out how to sell their "Four legs good, Two legs better!" propaganda to the sheep.

Maybe you guys could give us a sneak preview? I'd love to hear it.
How are you going to sell "Redeploy and Contain" while simultaneously calling Murtha a traitor to this country?
What's the amazing coat of paint that's going to convince us this is a brand new brilliant plan for victory?

And I'd love to hear more about "security first". Planning on installing a new dictator?

The NoeconApoligists these days remind me of that Iqaki (Saddam's war minister) that kept coming on tv saying we're winnning....

Hey wait! I just realized... He was right! They are winning!!!!

Since Dubya promised Total Victory and Cheny told us way last year that the insurgency is in its last throes, Baker should apologise and go home.
He clearly doesn't see reality like the Bushies do. Typical librul.

Once again Baker comes to the rescue of a member of the Bush family. What a pathetic story this country has had to suffer through under this crew of lying, scheming slimeballs.

There's not much more to be said here. I think the line of visitors to Bush's house might be limited after retirement. That might actually be something that catches his attention.

Remember the other job Baker was brought in to do around the beginning of 2004?

Getting other countries to help pay for Iraq re-construction.

Baker, you did a heck of a job!

This seems to me to be a policy of continued brutality, but now under a dictatorship. Not much of a change, since the "democracy" thing seems to have been pretty much a fraud from the beginning anyway, even though they did have a "vote." Real democracy was neither on the ballot nor in the cards.

Looks as though we're cozying up to yet another tyrranical regime to be installed. There goes the "democracy" reason for being there, joining the "WMD" reason.

So we got rid of Saddam--you never hear the end of that one, right? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Might turn out to be worse. But admittedly, the atrocities of the Iraqi insurgents have not shown them to be worthy of a whole lot better. Might have been better to leave them under Saddam's "contained" boot. Would have been lots less American blood spilled and money spent. But what is it, "Don't cry over spilt blood"? I don't think so. It ain't milk. This war was poorly conceived, planned, and executed. The buck stops...where?

Remember the other job Baker was brought in to do around 2000?????

A good argument could be made that his assistance in the theft of the presidency is directly responsible for the deaths of 3000 citizens on 9-11, 3000 soldiers in Iraq and 650,000 Iraqi civillians. How do these scum bags sleep at night???
Will Baker defend Dubya during his coming impeachment????

I know I always make this observation, so if it's annoying, I apologize in advance:

The usual suspects of the right wing here on the DR seem to stay away from threads such as this one. Instead, you'll see them out in force if the thread is about gays, or religion, etc.

Funny, ain't it? I've not seen one of 'em, not even the intelligent ones (e.g. Rob, Eberly, JeffJ) offer anything remotely resembling a reasoned response to why we're in Iraq still, and what "their" leader plans to do about resolution (which is, in layman's terms, absolutely nothing).

How can anyone support this administration? Even blind partisanship and "patriotism" (in quotations because the definition varies wildly, don't it?) can't explain it.

Every American should do everything in his or her power to ensure that we never again devolve into a "one party" system as we've had with Bush's Republicans.

And Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

""The buck stops...where?""

Nuremburg???

Jimi, isn't it funny how the same people who have hanged their collective hats on the idea that we had no choice but to remove Saddam from power because he killed Iraqis, are by and large the same group today that refers to the same Iraqis as terrorists and murdering animals -- when we kill them.

Let's see: Saddam killing Iraqis = bad. America's illegal invasion responsible for killing Iraqis = good, progress, freedom on the march.

EVA: There is a definite cut and run by the Bushies here. They've given up trying to defend the undefendable. Post a link that has anything remotely linked to Clinton, a penis or Carter and they'll wear out their keyboards there though. Or 101's favorite, "yeah but Pelosi would..." (fill in your favorite delusion).
I think Rob tacitly accepted that Bush is a complete failure on some other post when he stopped trying to link Bush with success or a more secure country and said "all politics is local", which is the Renamblacan code for "Run from the loser in the WH and your fellow GOP crooks and perverts at every opportunity."

"""yeah but Pelosi would..." (fill in your favorite delusion).""

But soon.....Pelosi WILL........

(Pelosi is going to be the Rethuglicans' worst nightmare.)

Yes, Pelosi will come out with the subpeona equivalent of a flamethrower if the Dems take the House. Gotta be a lot of people in Washington guzzling Maalox.

"Nothing less than complete and total victory"

isn't that what Chimpy was trumpeting? Along with "Bring 'em on"

Well they did, and it's on your hands, all of it, yours and The 51%. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

In the near term... that's a key phrase, that I'm shocked... SHOCKED... was left out of the title. Guess there just wasn't enough room...

So Rob, it's the "new and improved" victory? Brought to us by a new and improved dictator? Just trying to get a fix on this so I understand it.

So Rob, it's the "new and improved" victory?

No, its a plan proposed by a commission that President Bush authorized, to bring about a solution to the problems in Iraq.

You guys are just mad you can't yell that "Stay the course" insult anymore...

No, its a plan proposed by a commission that President Bush authorized, to bring Murtha's ideas into the administration without giving him credit.

That's funny Danni...

Murtha's plan is an immediate pullout of our troops and bring them home. Show me where in this story they are suggesting the complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

The question, Rob, is when is Bush going to be held accountable for this grand experiment? They lumber forward with the same tired old rhetoric, when all facts around them say otherwise. There is no way in hell that anyone would've supported this invasion (besides the neocons, of course) if a realistic scenario, not Bush's oft-cited cake-walk, had been given. But it's all "learn as we go, maybe change a few things here and there," yet you Republicans never seem to get the idea that THOUSANDS of people, some of them American soldiers, died needlessly for the ineptitude of the people YOU voted into power.

And now it's all a matter of political maneuvering to remain in power. How many more Americans are going to die before someone with a true plan takes charge? Somehow it's okay for Americans to die "over there"?

The question, Rob, is when is Bush going to be held accountable for this grand experiment?

Ah, it was the 2004 election. He was reelected.

""Murtha's plan is an immediate pullout of our troops and bring them home.""

Wrong. Murtha's plan was to pull our troops out of Iraq but keep them in the middle east so that they could redeploy if necessary.
But, that's right, you guys never admitted that Democrats even had a plan, no matter how many times it was presented.
Ask Mean Jean, she could probably fill you in.

They lumber forward with the same tired old rhetoric, when all facts around them say otherwise.

This commission's very existence proves you wrong. They are not "lumbering forward" they are working to fix the situation. If they were "lumbering" forward, then Baker would not be proposing anything to the president.

Murtha's plan was to pull our troops out of Iraq but keep them in the middle east so that they could redeploy if necessary.


So when he said, "Its time to bring them home" he was lying?

So you are quoting a liar, Good to know...

Not to say you are full of crap Rob...but....

In his own words

""My plan calls:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq""

Nuf said.

Hey Rob, when you get some new b.s. come back and play again.

Rob, people have been telling Bush for quite some time that he's not rooted in reality. You're assuming a lot; that Bush will actually implement what the panel suggests. Historically, he "listens" and does what his inner voices tell him to do anyway. Certainly, such sweeping policy changes aren't his M.O.

From the article:

"But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq."

And my favorite quote:

"The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations."

But... but.. bu.. The UN is useless... Criminal... Oh, that's right, righties, they weerrrreee... Until you need to justify the invasion, then Saddam, gasp, violated UN sanctions. When the UN complains, then.. then they are useless.

And, Rob, please answer my question: When will YOU hold Bush accountable for his utter incompetence in Iraq?

And, apparently, he's *not really* listening to his generals on the ground, now is he?

I hope they don't want help from the upper floors of the UN that John (I hate the UN) Bolton said could be removed.
Is it just me that thinks it was IDIOTIC to appoint an UN hating asshole to be our ambassador there????

: When will YOU hold Bush accountable for his utter incompetence in Iraq?

I did already.

Iraq war started in 2003. There was an election in 2004. I and 51% of Americans who voted, said President Bush should still be President.

And, apparently, he's *not really* listening to his generals on the ground, now is he?

Explain this? How do you know?

This commission's very existence proves you wrong. They are not "lumbering forward" they are working to fix the situation. If they were "lumbering" forward, then Baker would not be proposing anything to the president. -Rob

Bush and Cheney are 'lumbering' forward, or maybe backward, and desperately trying to make what can be presented as 'progress' by getting Baker to come up with something. It will be a month or so before he does, but he is already willing to say it's not the "Total Victory" Bush has promised, time and time and time again. So Bush is actually getting Baker to take the responsibility he should be taking for not only saying that, promising that, and promising equal rights and democracy to the Iraqi people.

He is such a fraud, with his thin mean grin and comments on reporters' clothing when he is supposedly telling us he is concerned about North Korea's 'unacceptable' behavior.
Disgusting.

What's wrong Rob, you can't read the above direct quote from

I think I'm doing a great job of quoting murtha...

Immediate pullout... "bring them home"

Oh... let me guess the Washington Post is a "conservative rag" who is just lying when they put quotes around Murtha's words? Gotcha... he never said pullout or bring them home... its a Bush conspiracy... like 9/11

It will be a month or so before he does, but he is already willing to say it's not the "Total Victory" Bush has promised

In the near term. In the near term. In the near term. In the near term.

If we're going to lie repeatedly here, I guess I'll just retype the answer to such lies over and over...

Rob, I could care less about yelling "Stay the course" insults. You know that. I care about a war that has been FUBAR for years now. Or you forgot all the news--from the munitions dump with all those tractor-trailers full of explosives, to Abu Ghraib torture, to Jessica Lynch being "rescued," to the Pat Tillman PR lie (Afgh., I know--same deception, tho)--well, I don't have enough room on this blog to list it all--Rob, just when is failure failure? I'll take my answer off-line, since I have things to do.

PS, Rob, what we say or think here is of little significance. It's just a little blog. What is of significance is that the American public is clearly tiring of this situation, and Bush has apparently spent all his political capital and more.

"Explain this? How do you know?"

Shinseki?

"In the near term"

Yeah, maybe Iraq will be a cooperative democracy or at least not jihad-istland in 25 years. Donkeys may fly out my ass, too.

Rob, what would your reaction have been had the true nature of what we were in store for in Iraq had been laid out before Dubya launched? Would you have been a bit more demanding as to this proof of threat? Would you have wanted to try more options? Would you have said Don't go?

They either knew and didn't care, or didn't know and went anyway. Which is the greater evil?

"In the near term" is just a classic cop-out, Rob. An excuse for not having achieved the objective.

I'm pretty sure when the Korean War ended, the insane situation we have there with two countries at loggerheads and a DMZ with US troops was going to be a "near term" solution. Fifty something years later, here we are.

The Bush/Cheney regime went into Iraq like the foolhardy neo-cons they are,conning the US people but not most of the world that it all had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaida, and now they are going to try to worm out of what they wrought with WORDS.

OK, you have shinsheki, there are other generals, Franks & Miers (sp?) who say the number was right... is your general better than mine? Mine outranked yours... so does that make me the winner?

Now as to your question. If we knew then what we know now, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq. Mainly because the Congress would not have authorized Bush to go to war.

There is another less talked of benefit to Iraq, that I think would have been the best way to go into Iraq, or at least it should have been the main talking point. And that is that change needs to be brought to the middle east and a Democracy MAY be the best way to bring it about. I reject the idea that there is only two ways in which Arabs can be ruled, Dictatorship or theocracy. If they can see what it is like to be in a free society where they can grow and thrive in a peaceful society I truly believe that they will not be so willing to strap bombs to their chest or pilot planes into buildings. And I truly think that there could be a domino effect...

Islam right now is where Christianity was in the Middle Ages. We can either wait 600-700 years for them to calm the fuck down or we can try to influence them. I'd rather try then just sit back and watch.

So yes, I think we should be in Iraq, but I doubt we'd be there if we knew the WMD stockpiles didn't exist.

"In the near term" is just a classic cop-out, Rob

Or... its an accurate interpretation of what Baker is saying... Baker is saying that victory must be put off in the near term for the sake of stability. You can't have victory without stability.

Rob, I read you posts and wonder why you can't accept reality.

"" I reject the idea that there is only two ways in which Arabs can be ruled, Dictatorship or theocracy.""

Believe it or not, what you are willing to accept has nothing to do with reality.
The reality is (and was obvious before the invasion) that you have two main groups who are both determined to have power and neither is willing to accept rule from the other regardless of the outcome of elections. Democracy can only happen in nations where there is strong respect for the law, Iraq does not have that one qualification.

Rob, you're either being deliberately obtuse or you have a hard time with reading comprehension

Fom the article:

My plan calls:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. Thats why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.



Notice his plan. It is consistent with "bringing them home" as a quick reaction force and a prescence of Marines on the horizon do not require the kind of prescence we have there now.

So in esscence he is calling for the immediate withdrawal and redeployment of our troops, which will indeed bring the majority home.

Briwo... I'm not sure if I understand your post... it seems to back up what I've been saying that Murtha is/was calling for an immediate withdrawal and bringing them home.

Danni said that this is what Baker's plan is. She still hasn't shown me where it says that, but whatever, I wasn't expecting an answer. That's why Murhta came up. He is calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops and for bringing them home.

Rob,
I wouldn't have put "in the near term" in the title even if it would've fit.

We already know Rummy's 6 month tops estimate for the war was wrong by a factor of 10.
So if Baker says we'll have victory in 2 years, excuse me if I don't plan the victory party until 2030.


But in the end Iraq has turned out exactly how we said it would, and now it's going to be fixed exactly how we said it would.
For 'stability first', Bush won't send the troops needed, which means a new dictator, someone who can hold the Iraqi army and police in line.

This all could have been avoided Rob, if we'd only been listened to 3 years ago.

Rob: read what I posted from the article.

I think you're misunderstanding. He is calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a redeployment to create a quick strike force.

This will end the occupation of Iraq while still keeping some force in the area if needed.
This will indeed bring the majority home.

He is NOT talking about immediate an uncondtitonal withdrawal of all troops (aka Cut & run)

Reread what he's saying.

I wouldn't have put "in the near term" in the title even if it would've fit.


Rest my fucking case...

Because it's a lie Rob, a bald faced lie.
I'm not going to put neocon propaganda in my posts.

Come on, you're smarter than that.

OK, you have shinsheki, there are other generals, Franks & Miers (sp?) who say the number was right... is your general better than mine? Mine outranked yours... so does that make me the winner?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2006-10-13 12:38 PM

No, because Shinseki was right.

Miers? Harriet? Ha Ha. Yeah, I know Richard...

"There have been successes in Iraq...."

There have almost been none of them, starting right after the looting of Baghdad.

So, what's the politcal choice for Bush here?

Use Baker's ideas for cover so he can pretend he's not quite as stupid as anyone thinks? Or continue what he's doing and confirm it?

Oh... let me guess the Washington Post is a "conservative rag" who is just lying when they put quotes around Murtha's words? Gotcha... he never said pullout or bring them home... its a Bush conspiracy... like 9/11

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2006-10-13 11:58 AM

No, but context in use of speech is important. Else I could pick and choose words from a Bush speech and come up with this:

W Bush" I .. am .. a ...loser"
"I am the decider .. I like corn"

"Rob, you're either being deliberately obtuse..."

Obtuse.

"the Kurdish North is a massive success... www.theotheriraq.com" Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Iraqi Kurdistan is much more peaceful than the rest of Iraq. But many experts see this as masking fundamental unresolved issues that make Iraqi Kurdistan potentially a massive ticking time bomb.

- Major unresolved issues remain over the political control of the oil fields of Kirkuk and Mosul - conflicts which would pit the Kurds against Arabs, both Shia and Sunni. The Kurds want the oil to finance their autonomy (and perhaps indepedence) while the Sunni and Shia fear Kurdish control would shut them out. Each place has sectarian and ethnically mixed populations that are a tinder box likely to blow as soon as US troops begin drawing down.

- the neighboring nations, US NATO ally Turkey, as well as Iran and Syria, all are alarmed about the possibility that an independent Kurdistan could emerge given that each has substantial Kurdish minorities. There has in fact been a renewal of hostilities in both Turkey and Iran by Kurdish insurgent groups and a low-level war is being fought in these areas.

Truth to tell, I was rather surprised to read that statement. It sounds like the sort of thing the Iraqi exiles like Chalabi were telling the US before we invaded. Now the Bush defenders are blowing smoke on Kurdistan.

We are well past time for such Pollyanna statements like the "massive success" of Kurdistan to be credible. Chock these in the same bin with Cheney's statements about chocolate and flowers, or Wolfowitz claims of a brief occupation that would pay for itself.

It is time to stop the self-delusion and get real about options for the USA. We can no longer afford such wishful thinking.

As an R, I admit I'm disturbed with my party. The military presence in Iraq is a failure, for any number of reasons.

Even more disturbing is the marketing of this mis-adventure.

Time for a change.