Skip to main content

Henry Kissinger now says it's not possible to win in Iraq:

WaPo -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday. ... In a wide ranging interview on BBC television, Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors including Iran if any progress is to be made in the region.

Kissinger is only the latest to accept the reality that this war, judged by many combat experts to be ill-conceived from inception and subsequently bungled to an extraordinary degree, is unwinnable. Of course, there's always the obligatory rejoinder that we 'cannot leave right away' or Iraq would 'descend into civil war and chaos.' Hear that soldiers, sailors, and marines? You can't 'win' according to Kissinger -- and a bunch of other people -- but George Bush is going to let sectarian militias use you for target practice anyway. Putting aside the tragic consequences for our brave service people in harm's way, and their families and friends, what are the stakes, according to the White House, if we do not prevail in Iraq?

Bush 2004 -- "[Zarqawi] and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well."

Bush 2005 -- "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

So the terrorist themselves agree that if Bush can't win in Iraq, that they've beaten him and us, and won the epic struggle of civilizations?

George Bush in Salt Lake City, September 2006 -- "Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the Third World War is raging in Iraq. It would come as news to the No. 2 man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, 'the place for the greatest battle.' ... If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities. The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq."

That "Iraq Is The Central Front In The War On Terror," and that head radical goons like Osama bin Laden agree, was no brief rhetorical statement by any means. It was affirmed endlessly by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and a host of other administration mouthpieces, pundits, and GOP lawmakers for three years running, with George Bush leading the charge.

Over and over the Bush-Cheney Administration, helped out by their Rubber-stamp Republican drones and assorted right-wing media borg have assured us, reminded us, and at times arrogantly scolded us, that all is well, that "Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror," that we have to win over there, or we'll be fighting them here, and that the fate of civilization depends on victory in Iraq.

Over and over, mostly from the safety of a corner office ensconced in wealth and privilege, draft dodging chicken-hawks portrayed war critics who did swear to defend our nation as traitors, gleefully smeared combat vets as cowards, and applauded the intimidation and muzzling of high ranking military experts who expressed even a shred of concern over the unfolding neocon catastrophe in Iraq.

Over and over intelligence was spun, excuses were made, deceptive soundbites were crafted and handed down to the right-wing media machine. Over and over We the People were told that the insurgency was waning, that great progress was being made, that there was light at the end of the tunnel, that things would improve in another six months.

It would be cheap, it would be quick; it would be Mission Accomplished.

Through it all to this day, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars evaporate like morning fog while morgues and trauma care wards full of dead and maimed Americans are quietly stacked away by the same despicable operatives who claimed to support the troops.

If the President was being truthful about the significance of Iraq to the war on terror and the stakes therein, doesn't it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:46 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And (39+ / 0-)

    how can right-wing loud-mouths like Hindraker, Brooks, or Hannity -- the list is almost endless -- continue to support an administration and a policy that has, by the administration's own reasoning and backed up by Osama bin Laden himself, lost the Central Front in the War on Terror and thus endangered the existence of civilization as we know it?

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:09:19 AM PST

    •  Have they even defined what constitutes a win? (16+ / 0-)

      I don't think so. To me, that is the first step in losing. They took that step toward losing before Iraq was a twinkle in Bush's eye.

      "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

      by BeninSC on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:16:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is this War on Terror? (13+ / 0-)

        Did Congress declare it? As I recall Bush was authorized to use force to go after Osama Bin Ladin. He failed to accomplish the mission.

        Seems to me like its time to revoke the authorization to use force, get out of Afghnistan and Iraq, stop giving nukes to countries that are liable to use them against their neighbors, and recognize that what should be terrifying us is Global Warming.

        We should be able to fully satisfy our need to be scared with the synergy of Global Warming, rising populations, diminishing food supplies, Peak Oil, Dying Oceans, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, without any need to create artificial enemies.

        Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH THEN TRY FOR WAR CRIMES

        by rktect on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:29:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dingell backed a draft on Face the Nation this AM (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rktect, John Casper

          Graham said 50,000 more marines and army were needed to deal with the war on terror.

          I don't view this as promising for an imminent cessation of hostilities in Iraq. Dingell talked of cooperation. With the Bush admin, that means more war.

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

          by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:43:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, but it may be a nervy way to drain even more (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mjd in florida, 4Freedom, beaukitty

            support for the OCCUPATION of Iraq.

            My sense/hope is that the Dems are going to end the war by investigating the hell of Haliburton. They want that narrative to drive our pullout. I have zero evidence for this, but even the mention of the word, might awaken a lot of the GOP to the potential danger to their offspring.

            I wish Dingell would have asked Bush, why he never asked for a draft.

            Everything the Dems do is predicated around soundbytes in the aftermath of the next 9/11.

            I think it would help Dems to point out that Iraq isn't a WAR, it's an OCCUPATION. Then they could mention that our OCCUPATION violates completely the Powell Doctrine.

            •  The Democrats' frames are very accomodative (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rktect, danno50, John Casper, red bed head

              If they keep it up, they sound like centrist Republicans rather than Democrats elected with a cross-country mandate, however narrow.

              I don't like the runup to January. I have heard too many cooing doves and too few policy hawks. Republican foreign and domestic policy is bankrupt, and it is going to take hawks to shred bad policy and re-direct it.

              DeLay as "The Hammer" ain't nothing compared to an informed electorate ready to hammer Congress into good form.

              My hammer is out and at the ready. I am not putting up with more of this BS. LTEs, phone calls, visiting offices and maintaining affinity groups has become a way of life.

              Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

              by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:55:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If Herr Bush had a draft in '03 we'd be... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hoplite9, rMatey, danno50

            ...Fighting [for starters]FOUR WARS RIGHT NOW: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea! The ONLY reason he hasn't invaded ["pre-empted"] Iran and North Korea right now is because Herr Bush has ran out of "boots on the ground". You wouldn't give a serial killer or a madman more weapons so why on earth would we give Herr Bush more troops to sacrifice on his altar of war? This is insane.

            Change the course--change the Captain. Change the crew. But save the ship!

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:49:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The object (5+ / 0-)

        has been to get away with as much as possible with the ultimate being complete total control of the world through the mideast.

        I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party! ...

        by LandSurveyor on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:49:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So Who Won? (12+ / 0-)

        Saddam Hussein?  Osama bin Laden?

        At least in Iraq, from the written evidence the U.S. military has collected, it is clear that Saddam's government had a guerrilla warfare strategy in place in case they were invaded by the U.S.  The military and paramilitary forces, like the Saddam Fedayeen, were to evaporate and begin small scale attacks on the opposition forces to bleed them out of Iraq.

        A second part of the plan could have been predicted from Gulf War I, when Saddam set fire to Kuwait's oil fields.  It was: "If I can't have Iraq, no one can."  A classic example of asymmetric warfare was begun in which all government buildings, documents, the electrical power grids, oil pipelines, and other key elements of the infrastructure were deliberately destroyed.  The guerrilla campaign was designed to ensure that the infrastructure would remain dysfunctional as long as the occupiers were in Iraq.

        So Saddam, doomed to hang for his many crimes, is the victor.  He lost to the father but beat the son.  Whether the Baath party is the ultimate victor in the Iraq Civil War remains to be seen, but Saddam is going to his grave with a peculiar place in Iraqi history.

        George W. Bush creates for himself an elaborate catalogue of failures:

        Lost the war in Iraq
        Lost the war in Afghanistan
        Never captured Osama bin Laden
        Destroyed the U.S. as a military hyperpower
        Destroyed the post-WWII alliances in the west
        Strengthened the Axis of Evil
        Allowed several countries to develop nuclear weapons
        Converted a federal surplus into a massive deficit
        Deliberately trampled on constitutional freedoms

        And still to be seen....
        Fiddled while global warming tipped into disaster
        Presided over a second Great Depression in the U.S.

        It is no longer a question that he is the worst president ever.  The historical question is who comes close to taking a country at the height of its power and global influence and in a mere four years destroying this power forever?

        •  Don't Be Modest for Mr. Bush (9+ / 0-)

          That was an impressive laundry list of BushCo's failures and it was worth a recommend all by itself. I'd also expand the list to include torture, elimination of Habeus Corpus, signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and other injustices. A single line for constitutional freedoms does not do this subject justice.

          I have to diagree on a minor point since I'm going on the record. I don't think the power of this country is destroyed forever and I certainly hope you're wrong on that detail. We have been gravely damaged as a nation and as a world power. We need new leadership and homefully our Dems will provide it.

          •  Great comment, thanks. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  The Military Power of the U.S. is Destroyed (7+ / 0-)

            All it takes is $200 IEDs, and a guerrilla war where the insurgents can blend in and receive support from the population.  It helps too if the insurgents are willing to trash the very country they are trying to save.  

            How does the military counteract such a campaign?  The U.S. is lousy as an occupier.  It takes forever for the military to learn anything about the local culture, and the lack of professionals who speak the local language is devastating (local interpreters sooner or later are corrupted or scared off by the insurgency).  The massive dominance the U.S. has in airpower has been shown to be either worthless or counterproductive in Iraq.  The indulgence of the international bond and foreign exchange markets to the enormous debt the U.S. has issued for the Iraq War has often been overlooked,  but this indulgence won't last forever and will probably no be available for the next adventure.

            Wars of occupation by superpowers don't work.  The great military might of the U.S. may be of merit if there were all-out war with China, but then there is the risk of nuclear warfare that would devastate both countries.

            So you have to wonder, what good is the military status of a superpower?  Perhaps it helps when there are true multilateral military campaigns, such as in the Balkans, but it certainly hasn't been effective when the U.S. acts unilaterally.

             

          •  And lest we forget a National Police Force... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Real Texan

            ...His very own personal Gestapo authorized by the 2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization  Act Section 1076 [re-defining the Posse Comitatus Act].

            Change the course--change the Captain. Change the crew. But save the ship!

            by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 12:04:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Being able to go on to attack Syria and Iran, (0+ / 0-)

        ... in accordance with PNAC plans to redraw the map of the Middle East . . . I think that's what they thought of as a "win" in Iraq, things being stable enough for them to do that.

      •  Wow... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peglyn, rMatey, John Casper, nom de paix

        If even that asshat Henry Kissinger, aka Mr "We could/should/would have won Vietnam", gives up on George Dubai and throws in the towel...  Bush has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the hardest of the hardcore.

        Vietnam: it was supposedly the "front line" in the "War on Communism".  We lost that... and amazingly, America is still here.  Bush's bungle in Iraq will only destroy America if we continue squandering lives and resources there.

      •  they have, kinda... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        danno50, mightymouse

        Apparently, it's an endurance contest.  Winning means not losing; leaving is losing; so winning is not leaving.  At least, not until a new president is in office - then it's his/her fault.

        Once you're able to suspend disbelief and reason, thinking like a neocon or member of BushCo isn't that hard....

    •  Oh! But you haven't been listening to Hate Radio (20+ / 0-)

      . . . lately, have you!  They have a new tack:  You know that war that Bush lied us into and, along with Rumsfeld and all the yapping GOPers who've been bunging it up for the past3+ years?  Well, now that Democrats (well, come January's end, at least) control Congress. . .  Everything Related to Iraq is Their Responsibility, 100%.

       Of course, never mind that Civics 101 tells us that the Executive Branch is responsible for prosecuting wars, that Bush is (gag) "Command-in-Chief", that the Department of Defense and State Department are Executive Branch departments (which Congress can only oversee, and control budgets on, to an extent), that for 3+ years Bush has been bragging about how he's a "War President" . . .

      BG
      ____________________________________________________

      We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

      by BenGoshi on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:18:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq was always their 'thing.' (6+ / 0-)

        I agree, Ben, for all their lip service about 'guts,' when it comes to Iraq they're more than willing to cut and run if it means they can blame Democrats for the myriad failures there. They won't put up or shut up, they just run.

        "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

        by BeninSC on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:24:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly: they're dyin' to "Cut and Run" from... (12+ / 0-)

          . . .  responsibility for this fiasco.  Hannity's doing his nasely best to lay Iraq at a Democratically-controlled Congress' feet, even now, before the Democrats control Congress!  So, Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress had 100% responsibility for this debacle from at the very least January 2003 (planning stage for an inevitable war that Bush/GOP was gonna wage no matter what) through, say, December 2006:  3 solid years.  

           Then, with the Executive and his DOD and State Dept still in place, come January's end, Iraq will be hot potato'd over to the Democratic Party, in toto.  The GOP seems to have figured out that it needs to go back to just attacking "welfare queens" and leave the difficult stuff to the adults.

           BenGoshi
          ____________________________________________________

          We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

          by BenGoshi on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:31:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  'They' are not dying ... (6+ / 0-)

            And neither are any of their kin or the kin of their major supporters. Quite pain-free for them, it is. This has been one of my major arguments all along - it requires no strength or courage to send the children of others off to fight your battles, Mr. Bush. In fact, it is quite cowardly.

            I don't think this initiative (to run away from responsibility for what they have done) will succeed, BenGoshi, and I am deeply committed to seeing that it does not.

            (Are you diarying this? ;) It seems to me to be an issue with your name stamped on it.)

            "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

            by BeninSC on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:48:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, "dying to cut & run"- expression ya know. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Flann, rMatey, BeninSC, KathyinSC, JML9999

              Will try and diary this in some meaningful way in the next day or 3.  Must run for now.  It is an important issue, as they are, indeed, going to go full-out to rewrite history to put Iraq at the Democrats' feet.  As audacious as that sounds, that audacity is something that they still have in spades; see, e.g., Bush in Viet Nam lamenting that we didn't war on Viet Nam enough, Hannity and O'Reilly and Beck lying with the ease that others breath . . .

               BG
              ____________________________________________________

              We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

              by BenGoshi on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:58:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I actually heard some Repub on tv saying (5+ / 0-)

            that internally the Party has decided that Dems really are better at "that governing thing".  They still feel sincerely they are the ones to be in charge of foreign policy and war-making, but would prefer Dems be in charge of the budget and day-to-day running of things.  Fat chance, you idiots.  If we're running things day-to-day, you can bet your ass we're not gonna hand you the billfold and credit cards and let you set fire to the rest of the world.

    •  They're complicit. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Flann, drewfromct, BeninSC

      They all helped Bush get into this war and they all helped to put this country on a path to failure. They've doomed themselves to go down with the ship.

      hink

      •  Think about it -- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrHinkyDink, DarkSyde

        GOP reps gladly went along with Bush's adventure - and even after it failed - and Bush kept looking into the camera claiming "stay the course" - they kept going along in order to stay in Power.  This is a character issue - a moral failing - and a justifiable reason to doubt their judgement and integrity.

        Not a victory for our Party -but an Opportunity for our Country. - Pelosi

        by annefrank on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:34:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let this loss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trueblueliberal

      be a referendum on the

      TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS PROGRAM

      That power has been tied to a president during wartime. And it's time to stop it.

      I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party! ...

      by LandSurveyor on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:47:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  isn't it obvious? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Casper

      It may flow from "elementary deduction", but this administration isn't bound by all that mumbo-jumbo science stuff.

    •  I am confused (0+ / 0-)

      I thought Henry the K told Dubya that we couldn't lose unless we gave up and left?  Isn't that what Woodward says Kissinger told Dubya?  Isn't that the "lesson from Vietnam" that Dubya stupidly repeated this week in Hanoi?

      So if that's Kissinger's big lesson from Vietnam, how can he now say that we've lost the war?

      Unless...Kissinger's full of shit? Could that be it?

      </snark>  </rage>

      Hey, George, sometimes you deal with Congress with the majorities you don't have, not the majorities you wish for.

      by litigatormom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 02:07:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Juan Williams(FOX) is right (5+ / 0-)

    Have enough troops to fight real terrorist ad foreign threats  but let the Iraqis sort the sectarian violence themselves--essentially Murtha's plan.

  •  If Kissinger admits Iraq is unwinnable (13+ / 0-)

    You know that goose is cooked....time to cook that goose

    ..do you know why George Bush is so pissed off at Arabs? They brought us algebra. --Kurt Vonnegut

    by proudprogressiveCA on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:13:41 AM PST

    •  "Why does Kissinger hate America"? (5+ / 0-)

      I can't wait for the Wingers to launch that meme. There's something so ironic about that that words fail me.

      "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

      by pat208 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:26:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  meh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue

      Kissinger should STFU, he was all Gung ho about the Iraq war, Lebanon included.

      Now he is doing ass covering. get real.

      If he wants to help in menaingfull way, he should help removing Bush from the office pronto. So we can have a real guy who can solve things.

      Everybody already know Iraq is not winnable. And we have to reconstruct diplomatic andmilitary effort.

      But .IT IS NOT going to happen with that idiot in charge.

      He has no credibility left.

      Talking to Iran? with Olmert just talking shit with the chimpie on TV few days ago?

      ....PLEASE...

      Mister K. STFU.

      •  Everything from his gravelly voice to his society (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        wife who towers over him is contrived. He busses the butt with the biggest bucks.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

        by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:57:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Link? (0+ / 0-)

        IIRC, correctly, Henry was certainly not "out front," advocating for invasion/occupation in the MSM. After it started, it was Henry who first said, we have to "win," but I thought that was code to Bush to actually do something beyond giving no bid contracts to Haliburton.

    •  Time for Bush to be a man (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Casper

      like the rest of have to do day in and day out: Admit failure and change strategy. Any bets?

      I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party! ...

      by LandSurveyor on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:00:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  At least... (6+ / 0-)

    ...most of the people responsible for our involvement in Vietnam served during World War Two in some capacity.

    Let me remind you what happened to the Army in the years following Vietnam.  We tried this grand experiment in which we were to staff the armed forces solely with volunteers.  For awhile, it was somewhat less than successful; quotas were not met, and all kinds of less-than-satisfactory people got in.  There was drug abuse and racial violence in the ranks until the early 1980s.  The "hollow Army" of the Carter era didn't exist because of mismanagement, it was because no one in their right mind would join.  Hell, the movie Stripes (with Bill Murray) was appallingly accurate in its portrayal of the state of the Army at the time.

  •  DarkSyde, your comment about (20+ / 0-)

    telling the troops that they can not win, but must stay anyway and be targets..just distilled the whole thing for me.  There, in that sentence or two, you have the heart of it.  We've lost.  So we're staying..why?  Thank you for piercing all the bubbles.  God help us all.

    •  The longer our politicians fiddle around (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle, 4Freedom, phonegery, John Casper

      trying to figure out how to cover their ass so they don't have to take responsibility for the obvious consequences, the more people are going to die unnecessarily.

      The redeploy over the horizon and go to a diplomatic approach while we debate how Iraq gets partitioned and who gets control of its people and who control of its resources will leave some people with a lot of egg on their face. Not all of them will be Republicans.

      The first result will probably be an independent Kurdistan and an enraged Turkey. Redeployed troops and Diplomacy could be a lot of help there.

      The second result will probably be a Shia majority continuing to wage a genocidal war against their onetime Sunni oppressors, and the well educated mostly Sunni professionals leaving the country in droves.

      We may have to bring the UN in as peacekeepers using mostly arab nations. We lack the linguistic and cultural sensitivity to do that job.

      One thing we could do with our redeployed troops and diplomacy is improve our capabilities in those areas, especially humint. We could also begin focusing on building schools and hospitals and infrastructure in places where they won't be blown up before the construction is finished.

      The final result will be Iran, Russia and China dominating the shia fertile crescent from Pakistan Afghanistan and the Tarim basin to Lebanon and from Dubai to Azerbadjan.

      Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH THEN TRY FOR WAR CRIMES

      by rktect on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:43:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Turkey AND Iran AND Syria will be enraged by (5+ / 0-)

        a free Kurdistan.  Why couldn't we withdraw to the Kurdish territories, to protect them from these countries, and to protect our own troops while we figure out the rest?
        Your comment points out just what kind of clusterf**k we're in here.  There are far more and better reasons for other countries to fight us than help us.  Will the UN be willing to help?  If we must accept the idea that we will not withdraw immediately, because Bush will never allow it, we must then find a way to "make things better" while we wait for a different White House.

        •  Kurdistan as a protectorate - the Kosovo of Iraq. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rktect, sherlyle

          That's actually an idea worth considering. It's probably the only way to deter Turkey from just marching right in the day Kurdistan declares independence.

        •  Can Kurdistan pump and sell out in the current (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rktect, sherlyle

          climate? I'm ignorant, and it's clear to me from your comments, you understand this a lot better than I.

          Can we impose on Kurdistan to share a percentage of their oil revenues with the Sunni's in Iraq, Turkey, Sryia, and Iran?

          •  There's a good question. Kurdistan area (0+ / 0-)

            is much calmer than the rest of Iraq, but they too are being attacked, and I hear Iranians are responsible for most of the assassinations taking place there.  Would the Kurds be allowed to control the oil coming out of Kirkuk?  Would they be attacked at the same level, more, or less, if American troops were to concentrate there?  We would act as bait, wouldn't we?  But then we would be concentrated there, maybe too strong a presence to allow much in the way of raids..?  
            As for Kurds sharing their oil wealth with Sunnis in neighboring lands, why should they?  You mean as a bribe to leave them alone?  Can't see that working very well.

          •  Kurdistan has the wells (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rMatey, sherlyle, donnamarie, John Casper

            the Sunni have the pipelines
            The Shia have the refineries.

            The Shia are already moving to squeeze the Sunni out of the picture with genocide. The Sunni Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, who would normaly be in position to call for the US to protect them, are out of favor at the moment.

            This so called Democratically elected government has failed. In order to stay in power it has had to let the Shia faction have its way.

            Since we are now supporting a government which says it wants us out of the country and denies us access to the al Sadr neighborhood even to look for our kidnapped troops, and is giving free reign to shia death squads one has to wonder what putting more troops into that situation makes better.

            The way I see it the Sunni in Iraq are screwed, and if they are screwed so is Iraq for a long time to come.

            The Sunni represent most of the merchants, most of the professionals, doctors, lawyers, pro western politicians, owners of the oil infrastruture, most of the academics and all of the Sunni clerics. They are the intellectual infrastructure a government needs to govern.

            The only logical inference is that after whatever remain of them finish fleeing the country their replacements will come from Iran. Shia will then rule from Pakistan to Lebanon and control both the refineries and the pipelines.

            It will be mutually advantageous for the Kurds and Turks to build pipelines to Turkey to deliver the Kurds oil to market and deal with eachother.

            Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH THEN TRY FOR WAR CRIMES

            by rktect on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:49:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  sherlyle my 8:27 was directed at you, thanks n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle
      •  Great comment. I don't think Turkey will be the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sherlyle

        only ME country enraged with a free Kurdistan.

  •  So now (10+ / 0-)

    we go to the bargaining table with countries that the deciderer has previously demonized, and who know how awful our hand now is. Way to lead, Georgie!

    Here's my question. Does King George the Deciderer have any remaining sycophants to make the case that 'tail between the legs' is actually a negotiating position of strength?

  •  They have been smart,,, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, Molly Martinez

    in their rhetoric.

    By linking Iraq with the "global war on terror", this administration has bought themselves votes and time.

    Vietnam, as long as it took us to get out of there, was one country.  We lost one war.  We pull out, it's over.

    Iraq, according to WH spin, not so much.  We lose there, we will have terrorists on every street corner.

    I admit, I so feel the need to vent my frustration on these war threads, but I don't have a clue how we fight the rhetoric or the actual war.  Who the hell has the ability to bail us out of this one?

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2865+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

    by Miss Blue on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:20:48 AM PST

    •  Only we (15+ / 0-)

      can bail ourselves out. The first step is to admit that the war in Iraq is not and never was about terror, democracy, Osama, or even Saddam. It is now and always was about the oil. We need to immediately put the R&D, deployment, and subsidation of alternative fuels and oil conservation on a wartime footing, on the same scale and intensity of the Manhattan Project and Apollo Program. As new oil-replacing energy sources are developed, we must share them with the world as we shared our resources through the Marshall Plan. Then we need to look to the example of West Germany and South Africe by putting our worst war criminals on trial and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation commission to deal with lesser transgressors.Performing these actions will hopefully restore enough of our credibility and standing in the global community so that as US troops are withdrawn from Iraq, they can be replaced by an International Peacekeeping Force to speed a hastier end to the Iraqi Civil War, as was done with some small success in Bosnia and Kosovo.

      Finally, I think it's crucially important to show to ourselves and to the world that Bush and Bin Laden are nothing more than birds of a feather, two sides to the same coin, both of them warmongering religious fanatics who hate freedom and democracy and love to revel in the power and glory of death and destruction. If either one of them were to win, we all lose.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:48:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the WAR ON ENERGY DEPENDENCE ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hoplite9, sherlyle, John Casper, Neon Mama

        or maybe better yet, the War for (Energy) Independence.  Short, sweet, patriotic-sounding.  And maybe, even, truly patriotic.

        I wouldn't believe Bush if his tongue became notarized (h/t to shanti2)

        by billlaurelMD on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:02:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I forgot to mention (4+ / 0-)

          the sheer ironic idiocy of the fact that in order to fight a war to control the oil supply, it is necessary to consume one helluva lot of oil in the process. Have you seen the gas mileage figures for an Abrams tank, lately? Something like three gallons to the mile. Jet planes and helicopters suck down a lot of juice, too. Then there's the gas that goes up in smoke when the insurgents target pipelines.

          If there's one thing Rethugs know, it's the law of supply and demand. The less there is of a commodity and the higher the demand, the higher the price. What a charming little coincidence that the very same folks who got us into this war are all (ex!) oilmen and women, and most if not all of them have extensive and longstanding ties to and investments in the defense industries. There are some that say that this is a war for oil, that we went in to get cheaper gas. That's a stupid lie. We went in to make gas more expensive! Does anyone else here remember filling up for 99 cents a gallon while all the Rethugs howled "Wag the dog!" at Bill Clinton when he fired missiles at Osama? I sure do. I may be dumb, but even I know that oilmen would'nt go to the trouble of committing us to a war for oil in order to bring the price down.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:56:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think the 11/7 vote put the lie to the American (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct

        voter not understanding the stakes here. Without an MSM voice, the vote remains a submerged mandate that the Democrats are going to have to re-energize to help block Republican war-mongering.

        Everything we can do to keep lines of communication open with Congress and the media is needed to assure that the majority opinion of the electorate is reflected in Congressional votess.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

        by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:07:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  drewfromct, I wish you were on our (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct, Molly Martinez

        foreign policy board.  Your ideas are sound.  As for the dependence on foreign oil, I think you're right - the only way to break our own neocons from their dreams of ruling the world is to put this country on a footing that does not require foreign oil.  We could do it!  The people are ready, they understand the need, and we have the technology.  This would create millions of jobs, clean up our environment, and slow global warming.  We could move to a position of true beneficence in the world by helping all others switch to clean energy, as well.  

      •  Maybe this is true for the Bush administration (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hoplite9

        But for the American public, which overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Iraq, it was about fear and the desire for revenge after 9/11.  

        And revenge probably should come first in that list.  The American people wanted this war.  They really believed it was going to be just like Gulf War I and the Afghanistan war - over in 90 days.  Hardly anybody had any personal stake in the war, but a lot of people beneath the surface wanted some Muslim or Arab somewhere (presumably a terrorist to boot) to pay for 9/11.  In that sense the public agreed with Rumsfeld: Afghanistan as a post-9/11 response was just not sufficient; not enough targets.  George Bush understood this very well - he felt the same way - and exploited the emotional desire for war.

        We should remember one other thing.  Americans don't really understand anything about war.  Very few Americans have been on the receiving end of a bunker busting bomb.  The Pentagon ensures that the pain of war is sanitized.  The financial costs are nowhere evident.  The reality of what it is like to be an Iraqi is incomprehensible to Americans, because we think of war as a big-scale video game or some sort of Rambo movie.  

        I'm not sure the first step in dealing with this loss in Iraq should be to admit the war was about oil.  The first step should be to put Americans on the same plane as the rest of humanity - sympathetic to the victims of war rather than viewing it as an elaborate electronic exercise.  This problem must be solved to prevent another such war, or worse still, another terrorist attack on American soil, when some Americans will become empathetic to the victims of war.

        •  If they American public (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rMatey

          is as stupid and bloodthirsty as you make them out to be--and they just may well be so--then it seems to me that it would be a hell of a lot easier and more practical to convince them that a bunch of greedy oilmen have misled them into a war for control of the oil supply than it would ever be to somehow instill them with a sense of munificent empathy.

          You're not wrong, just tragically impractical.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 01:31:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  They also.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle, Molly Martinez

      learned the political lessons from the first Iraq War where Bush 41 fought a popular war in Iraq, got atmospheric approval ratings but sank the next year and lost bad in 1992. Bush 41 couldnt run on Desert Storm in 1992 because it did not connect with the voters.We kicked out Saddam in some distant land, but it didnt directly affect our country. Dubya learned that when you wage a war and run as a war president, you have to connect it directly with people's personal sense of security- hence the War on Turror. If we pull out of Iraq, millions of turrorists will pop out of nowhere and invade our neighborhoods.

      only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:07:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Most ME historians (8+ / 0-)

    predicted this outcome prior to the invasion.  Pity that the Republican right wouldn't listen to the "pointy-headed academics" (quoting Spiro Agnew about Vietnam) who actually KNEW something about the ME; instead they develop and groom their own pointy-headed "academics" to smooth their path, "academics" such as the Heritage Foundation, PNAC, the Hoover Institute, et seq ad nauseum.  Their conservative academics told us it would be a great victory, did they not, and we wouldn't have to listen to liberal (read: realistic) viewpoints.

    This fact should lead to a real cleansing of the academic institutions, but it won't.

    "One way or another, this darkness got to give"

    by wozzle on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:20:51 AM PST

  •  the notion of a "war on terror" is problematic (15+ / 0-)

    to begin with, and is essentially nothing but propaganda.  I think that even using the phrase, unless it is in quotes, is helping to legitimize it.

    Let me explain that a little more - I think it is obvious that there are people out there who bear ill will toward the U.S. who are willing to use terrorist tactics against us, and I think we have every right to defend ourselves against them.

    But, having said that, the problem that I have with the phrase "war on terror" is that it is extremely vague.  Terror is a tactic, not an ideology or a nation or a group of people.  Saying that we are in a war on terror is like saying we are in a "war on guerrilla warfare" or a "war on airstrikes", or for that matter, a "war on "war".  Constant use of the phrase is nothing more than a 1984-like technique to make the population fearful so they will look the other way as their constitutional rights are suspended.  Let's not buy into that by talking about it like it makes sense.

  •  Can we start compiling a list of Congressional (5+ / 0-)

    Republicans who have espoused this same line?  I wouldn't want George to get all the credit for having lost the "War on Terror"; others also need to be recognized for the losers they are.  

    "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

    by machopicasso on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:22:24 AM PST

  •  Kissinger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rMatey

    This is the same Kissinger we found out has been advising Bush? Good advice you're giving there. KISS-my-ass-INGER.

    Hypocrisy: (n) a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

    by MikeBaseball on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:23:32 AM PST

  •  Bush: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cici414, Miss Blue, pat208

    "Shit.  Now we gotta replace Kissinger."

  •  Didn't Henry the K (12+ / 0-)

    Do the same thing for Vietnam?

    Insist on victory until not only defeat but ignominious disaster was inevitable, then call for negotiations?

    Why, yes. Yes, he did.

    Somewhere R. Nixon is laughing out loud.  What a revenge.

    The conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises: the search for a moral justification for selfishness. -JK Galbraith

    by clio on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:26:52 AM PST

  •  Didn't kissinger say vietnam wasn't lost? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, phonegery

    if Kissinger is giving up, it's awful.

    although count the wounded rates.

    we are losing a battalion a month.

  •  Never forget the Enablers of Fox News (10+ / 0-)

    These people and their backers are as responsible for the deaths of our troops as those who fashioned the war plans.   They cheerleaded and browbeat us into this disaster. When are the Humes, the Wallaces, the nameless bimbos, the Barnes', the Hannitys going to be held accountable for the carnage they wrought?

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:27:52 AM PST

    •  That's too narrow (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, 4Freedom, Terminus, Dartagnan

      What about the New York Times with Judy Miller piling on? What about ALL the networks and cable news guys. I can't recall one that was opposed to this war. Not even sceptical.

      "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Leo Tolstoy

      by Miss Pip on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:29:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Media are Firm Proponents (0+ / 0-)

        of middle east militarism, and they have very little sense of humor about anyone that would undercut our mission.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:03:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The real war on terror... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, 4Freedom

    ...reached a milestone on November 7 and should be completed in November 2008.

    •  Oops. s/b the "most significant" war on terror. (0+ / 0-)

      Al Qaeda's still out there, of course.   But first things first.

      •  I agree with your first post (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hoplite9, rMatey

        The real war on terror is the war this administration is waging on Iraq and the American people.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

        by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:11:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Al Qaeda" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Panda, rMatey

        CIA child that it is, could never hope to inflict the damage upon America and the world that our clique of incompetent plutocrats, led by their howdy-doody puppet, the Shitboy have done.

        I'm with the poster above- there is no hope unless we hold War Crimes and Treason trials for the ring-leaders  and truth commissions for the legions of apparatchiks who have betrayed this nation and aided in the infliction of fraud, larceny and murder on the world.

        I don't believe in any "reconciliation" though, not with the monsters who have been accessories before and after the fact. I believe in swift punishment for those who would betray their Nation and humanity in furtherance of the warped ideology they call "Conservatism".

        We can start with the 5 criminals on the USSC who voed to stop counting the votes in 2000. They need to suffer badly, so blatant and heinous was their crime.

  •  Time to talk to the walls, George. (7+ / 0-)

    Your last Geppetto has cut the strings.  Must feel odd to have to stand up on your own and face your abject failure.  You are damage incarnate -- a bag of ignorant will used by clever men bent on theft.

    Talk to the walls, George.  You failure is writ huge.

    Bush/Republican legacy: Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Cheney's Dirty War, Black Sites, AnalPlugs&Bodybags, Rendition, Torture, Waterboards, Murder, the Disappeared.

    by Yellow Canary on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:28:21 AM PST

  •  bush's visit to VN SHOULD have opened his eyes (6+ / 0-)

    58,000 American lives lost - for what?

    How would the world be different if we had somehow prevailed?  

    At this stage in VN, of course, the death toll was lower than is that in Iraq.  And the lesson bush tells the VNese he takes is

    If the American people had not wimped out at 58,000 and had pushed on to 60 or 80 or 100k, we would have whupped your asses!

    No shame, and no intelligence whatsoever.

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:28:29 AM PST

    •  Re-fighting Vietnam (6+ / 0-)

      From what I have observed, from the start the Iraq
      War was a proxy for Vietnam, a vehicle for those who felt we lost Vietnam because we lost the will to fight to re-fight it in Iraq to "redeem" their own hurt pride and a way to rub it in the "Liberals" faces that we could win this sort of thing.  That's why they didn't listen to the "naysayers" from the start, blinded by their own hubris that this time they could win.  That is why they have been so blindingly following the administration's line about the war, and eating up the propanda;  they truly wanted to believe it could redeem them from Vietnam.  That is a sore point not often brought up, but should be.

      Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you-The Golden Rule

      by trueblueliberal on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:41:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The Bad Guys" won in Vietnam (4+ / 0-)

      Now they are our successful trading partners. The Vietnamese seemed to worked their own way out of a post-American invasion quagmire remarkably well.

      Most likely the ancient civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates could do the same if we cease our interference.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

      by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:13:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who are the factions in Iraq sectarian violence? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, ohcanada, phonegery

    Who are the factions in Iraq sectarian violence?

    Shouldnt bringing all the warring faction on the table  be started?

    Fasttracking training of Iraqis and a timetable.

     And setting a fast action force/base  in the Kurdish area or Al Queda --to make sure Iran does not take advantage of the situation.

    •  Damn good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Casper

      All you ever hear about is so-called "insurgents". What I'd like to know is, who the hell are these people, and what are they fighting for?

      Hopefully there is some way to gather the factions together and let them hammer out a peaceful solution. It's their country, and one would hope that they desire to dwell there peacfully.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:55:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What I Want to Know is What Are Our Troops (0+ / 0-)

      doing?

      They seem to get ambushed going from hither to yon. And sometimes they go somewhere and clear it out then come back.

      I'm confused.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:07:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow! This is big news. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cici414, Clem Yeobright

    To have Henry the K admit that it's over for the US militarily in Iraq is quite something!

    Since he's been one of the last hold-outs for Georgie's manic realty of our winning in Iraq, maybe - just maybe - it's going to sink in this time.

    Get the kids home NOW!!!!

    Daniel Craig...the BEST James Bond...ever!

    by ShaShaMae on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:32:43 AM PST

  •  perhaps the most ridiculous thing that Bush has (5+ / 0-)

    ever said, and that is saying a lot, is that BS about how "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

    Aside from the fact that it is illogical on its face, I think that if anything, being in Iraq makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks here, because so much of our military and government is distracted by the Iraq war.  Last time, I checked, Osama was not in Iraq.  Oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden, remember him?  

    Why does the MSM let Bush get away with this shit?

  •  Reminds me of an old old story! (5+ / 0-)

    Macbeth (GWB), promised by the three sirens to a future of undefeated glory, goes on a killing spree, of his best friend Banquo (the American people), his king (the US Constitution), his cousin (the US Army), believing the witches' prophesy that no man born of woman (abortion rights, christian right wing), would defeat him, and that he would be safe until the 'woods march'. And the woods did march! The dead Duncan's son Malcolm and his men camouflaged with tree branches marched to make it seem like the very woods were calling for vengeance against Macbeth!

    And so today, well, the dead wood Kissinger is ...

    a-marching!!
  •  A War on Terror (9+ / 0-)

    is THE dumbest thing this nation has EVER come up with.  I wish this phrase had never been allowed to get off the ground.  It's just incredibly stupid and I hate that we're being forced to talk about any of this in those terms.  The damn thing needs to be undeclared once and for all, or we're going to be playing this mind numbingly stupid game forever.  The word 'war' doesn't have any import anymore thanks to these asswipes.  

    Central front in a war that doesn't exist.  Jesus.  We lost the moment we crossed the fucking border.  

  •  I think it all has to do with the money (4+ / 0-)

    and the oil. Shrub's corporate cronies are calling the shots. They are the ones with the lucrative contracts and they want to ensure that they can still make money in Iraq. They are supposed to be building permanent bases there and then there is the big US embassy they are building, so they need to have the troops for security. How can they continue their projects which are earning themselves more money to buy their luxury houses and yachts if the troops leave? They are not done making all the money they can yet.

  •  At least they've done everything else... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Casper

    ... really, really well.

    "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

    by pat208 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:47:20 AM PST

  •  So Woodward was full of crap again? (0+ / 0-)

    So Woodward was full of crap again, when he said in State of Denial that Kissinger recommended a "stay the course" policy to Cheney and Bush?

    I'm not surprised.

    •  maybe kissinger changed his mind after (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      the book came out because he didn't want the tail of defeat pinned on him. he is running with the rest of the neocons for the nearest exit. i mean with the exception of cheney of course.

      •  one thing these guys do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stodghie

        is refuse to offer a well-defined target. If one says, "we start pulling out next year," the other says, "we're there for the long haul."

        What they say and what they think are not the same. who knows what Kissinger's game is? why the news people interview him is beyond me, anyway.

        an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

        by mightymouse on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:11:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dont you think that it mignt be counter productiv (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hoplite9

    e i mean if you were really fighting terrorism to trumpet the statements of you terrorist enemies as proof of your arguement. At best it means you see the world the same way dimented terrorist due and at worst you are fantastically and cynical in an epic way.

    The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. -Bill Hicks

    by waitingforvizzini on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:49:09 AM PST

  •  Kissinger my butt! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle, southbzender

    When you want to know about losing a war, go to the experts.  

    The war is totally winnable...just not by the myopic assclowns in power now.

    Funny how they are now suggesting to do all the things that John Kerry proposed...but wait...DEMS have no plan.

    I think we need to IMPEACH Bush and put someone else in charge.  They've screamed so hard about the WAR ON TERROR being so important and, by their own admission, they are losing it.

    Time to change the leadership.

    http://www.goOJgo.com

    check out our anti-republican comedy/horror "Night of the Dying Living" at http://www.goNODL.com

    by Jay Severin has no penis on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:50:43 AM PST

    •  Good point about Kerry (0+ / 0-)

      I wish some Dems would at least mention that.

      Maybe the idiots who voted for Bush would feel even less proud of themselves if they knew they're action cost billion of dollars, thousands of lives, just for the Republicans to reach the same conclusions Kerry did two years ago.

  •  cheer up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, phonegery, Neon Mama

    Contrary to Bushie's thought (?), we lost in Vetnam and now we are becomng trading partners.  Short term, Iraq's future is bleak, long term, oil money will ameliorate most memories and Baghdad will be rebult.

    Countries rich in natural resources can be compared to children of the rich.  They both have trust funds and can weather a storm if they get good advice.  Frst step for Iraq, kick out the US, they're destroying your fabric.  First step for the US, say sorry and get the hell out immediately.

    Americans beat the evil empires of the Reich and Hiro Hito, and now buy (covet) cars made there.  History will repeat, and that process will take place only after we're out of there.

  •  The "epic struggle for civilization" (4+ / 0-)

    is between Americans and the Total Information Awareness Program.

    I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party! ...

    by LandSurveyor on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:53:51 AM PST

  •  Duh! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama

    doesn't it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?

  •  Interesting... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chimpwatch, Molly Martinez

    ...I coulda told them this 4 years ago...funny how long it takes educated professionals to come around...which further gives creedence to the fact that this was never about winning anything...it was a set-up to line the pockets of Bush's coroprate pals...

    "Our sweat and our blood have fallen on this land to make other men rich." Cesar Estrada Chavez

    by bic momma on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:57:48 AM PST

  •  Terror is a state of mind. Can't shoot an idea. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, 4Freedom, John Casper

    Ideas are contagious.  Courage is an antidote to fear of terror. Can you just refuse to be afraid?        You can't bomb an idea. You need THOUGHT POLICE. They have been babbling to make us fear native British terror converts.  Using phrases like self taught jihadists.  Speaking of Americans who can become terrorist from reading  materials posted on web. The trend is to groom our minds to believe any Muslim is a potential terrorist. Fear them all, even if born and raised in America. CENSORSHIP to remove those bad ideas will be the next logical step!!!
        Military jihad was deliberately TAUGHT by textbooks our taxes designed, printed, and delivered to Afghans. (And others.) CIA idea done by University of Nebraska at Omaha.  The place to Taliban leaders paid a nice visit to some years back.    Americans KNEW they were inciting the most hateful results by twisting Koran message.  They said they were creating warriors against godless communist Russia. Ask Afghan ladies how it worked out?
        IDEAS can be defeated by BETTER IDEAS. Bad ideas die when exposed to truth.
        IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR TAX DOLLARS TO FUND SCHOOL TEXTS ADVOCATING, and thus establishing, ONE RELIGION.  OVERSIGHT. Check every textbook printed with my tax dollar and violating separation of church/state.  Bring charges against govt. employees who violated their oath to uphold the constitution.   Thou shalt not teach hate in my name.   Truth in textbooks!!  And yes, I mean the ones teaching FALSE SCIENCE in the US.  And "abstinance only" propaganda. And vouchers to fund church schools.   It is a pattern to set us against each other by radicalizing religions here and abroad. Prosecute and jail the criminals who refused to uphold their oath to protect and defend the constitution.      
       

    Santa is a Credit Card Republican. They get the credit, you get the bill. BEWARE REDS BEARING "Gifts."

    by Neon Mama on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 07:58:51 AM PST

    •  Dissembling by MSM has taken Americans' focus (0+ / 0-)

      off America's history of training our future enemies. Foreign policy has been an instrument of economic advantage for the rich, leading to debacles like Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argumment of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

      by 4Freedom on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:37:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not a WaPo story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkSyde

    It's an AP story.

    •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

      as listed at the top of the WaPo articles. I quoted material off of the WaPo site, which I first chose from a list derived from a google search because I know it's not a subscriber service, and I trust the domain for Dkos members. It's considered proper etiquette to then link back to them.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:05:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The political machinations behind (14+ / 0-)

    this are fascinating to contemplate.

    I suspect Kissinger is working as the public, "speakable face" of the Iraq Study Group (and probably the military).  That he went public seems to indicate to me that the ISG has told Bush Iraq is not winable but Bush continues to disagree and stubbornly stuck to his guns that victory is possible.

    This seems to me to be the reason we are seeing Kissinger on Sunday morning talk shows:  Bush is now so delusional that the ISG must seek out the public to pressure Bush into accepting reality.

    •  Bingo (6+ / 0-)

      there are serious well-heeled forces now arrayed against Bush's policy and those that once supported him are either neutral or in retreat. It's the beginning of the end for BushCo's reign over Iraq policy and probably pretty much every other aspect of this miserable neocon dynasty. This tells me that people in the know are aware of all kinds of fraud and despicable actions that will likely come to light starting with the new Congress and lasting for years.

      The afterbirth of Bush's spawn for the region though is going to be horrific. Like Somolia on steriods, dozens of factions with hints of the Khmer Rouge working with division sized groups who hate each other's guts and have for centuries, all strapped down with the best weapons oil money can buy.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:15:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The afterbirth of Bush's spawn (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Casper

        Ewwww, what an image!!!

        It is time for the entire neo-con world view and all it's supporters to be publicly denounced. The entire concept of "axis of evil" must be denounced as a mistake. The black and white delusion of this ideology must be denounced.

        It is time for the reality based to step in. Yes, the potential for regional chaos is there, but I think the attempt to negotiate with ALL the region's neighbors is the best chance for a solution.

        Sistani threw up his hands quite a while ago. We must negotiate with Iran and Syria to reign in Sadr's and the other sectarian militias. The only way Iraq will come to peace is when there can again be a bureaucratic civil service to manage the country, when people have jobs and food, water electricity. In order for that to happen the violence must desist. Iran has the influence to help that happen, I believe.

        -76W-83S It's always because we love that we are rebellious; it takes a great deal of love to give a damn - Kenneth Patchen

        by cosmic debris on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:29:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A few things (8+ / 0-)

    There are a few things that seem to have been lost in regards to the "war on terror."

    1. War was never declared by Congress. The US never declared war against Iraq. Congress just gave Bush the OK to do what it took to ensure Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. Besides how do you wage a war against an abstract? So far the US track record in doing just that (see "war on drugs") is abyssimal failure.
    1. A fact the Iraq war cheerleaders don't want people to remember is if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place al Qaeda would have never been much more than a thorn in Saddam Hussein's side in Iraq, and wouldn't be there at all if we hadn't been protecting them with no-fly zones.
    1. Saddam Hussein used to be our friend. Much of his former stockpiles of WMDs were US made. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait with US approval to stop Kuwait from slant drilling for oil in Iraq. I'm not saying the US gave him permission to invade, just permission to take action to stop them from stealing Iraq's oil. Short sighted diplomats and envoys from Washington probably didn't think he'd invade so they didn't tell him not to.
    1. Osama bin Laden used to be our friend. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan bin Laden and his men were trained and equipped by the CIA, and we had his gratitude until Bush I invaded Iraq and built bases on land considered sacred to Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

    9/11 is a direct result of our own mistakes, shortsightedness, and lack of understanding and sensitivity towards cultures and religious beliefs we do not understand. It has little to do with Iraq other than the blunders committed by Bush I in 1991. Dubya just used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein in hopes of installing another US puppet government there so we could get their oil. For someone who was a history major, he sure doesn't understand history enough to learn from it.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time...

    by Cali Techie on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:03:09 AM PST

  •  Kissinger piece is a joke. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    km4, 4Freedom, JML9999

    He was sublty saying in another article that Iran should be dealt with...

    My guess is that 'speaking' with the neighbors is going to be a trap to draw them into a larger conflict by blaming them for what has happened in Iraq.

    We're not finished, and we've begun to escalate operations in Afghanistan with airstrikes. Surely we could focus more efforts on Iraq instead of beginning new conflists with Iran, Syria and NK, but, do we really care about the future of those areas and their people, no.

    •  Of course, Kissinger could just be bullshitting (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      km4, mightymouse, borkitekt, JML9999

      During Nixon's time, he had a reputation of talking tough around the hawks, then acting reasonable around other people in the administration.

      Maybe he's just trying to sound reasonable around Europeans, but when he gets back on the phone to Cheney he tells him "stay the course."

      Or, the other possibility:

      He was talking tough, as Woodward's book implied, but has finally realized Iraq is FUBAR, and wants to get it on the record that he's in favor of negotiation.

      •  Henry Kissinger is disingenuous (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Janet Strange, ohcanada, mightymouse

        I don't believe anything from this deceitful and disingenuous hack.

        Wes Clark in 2008 because he's the ONLY top flight Dem that can effectively compete and win in ALL 50 states !

        by km4 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:22:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Baker and Kissinger (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fugue

          neither of them is elected.  I think Baker was unsuccesful in his run for political office at some point. The two are influencing and making decisions for the America people, by proxy through King George. All while duly elected persons stand by and watch it happen.

          Democracy flourishes in transparency...sure.

          George H.W. Bush appointed Baker Secretary of State in 1989, in which position he continued to serve through 1992, being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991

          Oh that we had the gift to see ourselves as others see us. Robbie Burns

          by ohcanada on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:00:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Deal/dealt with" is an interesting expression. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rMatey, borkitekt, John Casper

      The Arabic documents(Allegedly a Saddam Staff meeting) found after Saddam fell translated apparently as "Let's deal with them" in reference to Al-Q.

      Now look at the english language and the concept of inflection. You can't "see" inflection in the written word
      Example
      "Let's deal with them" said in a hostile angry tone of voice means hunt them down and kill them.

      "Let's deal with them" said in a pleasant voice means let's do lunch with them.

         I don't speak arabic but I suspect inflection is everything in every language.

      Same goes for Uncle Henry what was his inflection?

      Be carefull what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

      by JML9999 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:23:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not our action item (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stodghie, JML9999, John Casper

    Bush needs to fix this; he's commander-in-chief.

    The Congress's role in the next two years should just be to investigate, criticize, find fault, and prepare for a new administration, when we can say "Help is on the way."

    The Democrats should be careful to jump in and take credit for Bush's failure.

  •  These guys are still spinning. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Casper

    War in Iraq does NOT equal War on Non Governmental Terrorist Organization.

    We might have a republic for another hundred years if we can keep it.

    by victor lazlo on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:23:11 AM PST

  •  Bush has lost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molly Martinez

    the war in Iraq. And wil lose the WoT if he doesn't rethink his policy, which he won't. This bunch has no insight into their own mistakes, missteps and no desire to admit they are wrong.

    it's not complicated: you don't win an insurgent war militarily. It's not possible.
    It could have been avoided in the first place only with a huge force (hello General Shinseki). Even adding more troops now is pointless. We have to get out...and soon.

    Last sunday Lincoln Chafee had an op-ed piece in the NYTimes. One of the things he said was that despite Bush/Cheney running on a message of bipartisanship, Cheney was very explicit after the presidential election saying they had no intention of working with the democrats. My way or the highway was their message. And it still is. But hopefully there'll be some oversight.

  •  Where were the Neocons? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkSyde, John Casper

    With regard to Iraq, Powell quoted the Pottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it." Was the intention to own Iraq by breaking it?

    As for Kissinger, where was he? Is he trying to protect himself and the other Neocons by blaming Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Kissinger has always been a part of the Bush Administration. He was at Bush's ranch in Texas when Powell was selected as the Secretary of State.

    Where were the Neocons? Didn't they know before the election that the situation in Iraq was getting worse? Why didn't they speak up before the election?

    As reported by AP on 11/05/2005, Kissinger "warned against an early withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces from Iraq" in a speech given to top NATO officers and officials.

    Secret Reports Dispute White House Optimism - washingtonpost.com
    Page 1 of 5
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
    Page 3 of 5
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
    Page 4 of 5
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Secret Reports Dispute White House Optimism
    By Bob Woodward
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, October 1, 2006; A01
    Pages 3 & 4

    A powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy was former secretary of state Kissinger.

    The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.

    In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."
    © 2006 The Washington Post Company

  •  Reposted... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, rickeagle

    Unfortunately, the US may not be around long enough to learn anything from this stupid pointless war. People think that we can do things like this, then just walk away with hundreds of thousands dead and go through some kind of bs "national healing" and learn "never again" to do this kind of action.

    Not this time. This time, the US might have just bitten off more than it can chew and the extreme imbalances we see in US finances, trade, oil, etc might end up causing a total or partial systemic collapse. Stay tuned.

    •  It is exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      What will happen. Action must be taken NOW to forestall collapse. It won't be though and I have a feeling that is the exact result the plutocrats behind "globalization" want.

      The chaos resulting from collapse will allow the ruling elite to put into action all these dandy new Police State laws at a time their constitutionality won't be able to be questioned. The result they are working for is a nation controlled by them with a population of compliant serfs.

      And they will still insist we are free and the greatest nation on an earth they will hold hostage to our nukes.

      America will resemble a thousand Tienanmen squares when the clampdown comes. I fully support the purchase of legal firearms for self-defense.

  •  Loathsome (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    Why does Henry the Klown have to appear on BBC TV to tell the truth?

    Isn't he an advisor to US presidents? Is he planning to tell the American media the bad news at some point?

    •  If (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Casper

      I had to guess, I'd guess that K chose that venue so that it would seep in more slowly to the US, and still serve as a live ammo warning shot low across the bow of the USS BushCo that Dubya is way out on a limb all by his lonesome now and the subpeonas are coming hot and heavy real soon. He can either cut off the branch holding Cheney and Iraq, or they can all start falling at 10 m/s squared together.

      The next major indicator to look for if this is true and even grimmer than I imagine for Bush, would be Cheney's sudden resignation for health reasons.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:38:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush Is Qaeda (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    southbzender

    Bush won't negotiate with "our enemies" in Iran, N Korea, or back in Saddam's Iraq. But he will replay Osama's threats from his podium, repeat Qaeda terrorist propaganda in campaign TV commercials in heavy rotation.

    Terrorism is media war. The sabotage, killing and physical destruction is a tactical requirement, for terrorizing people. But even a single suicide bomber without a single casualty is enough for terrorism, when the story is pumped through the media (including word of mouth) to terrorize.

    The Qaeda terrorists put money in the bank when they planebombed us on 9/11/2001. Of course now a thousand other assholes are claiming to be "Qaeda", especially in Iraq where Bush has made the US weaker than we've ever been anywhere and anyone can claim their piece of the favorite local brand, now "Qaeda".

    Bush putting the budget and strength of the US behind the Qaeda message makes him Qaeda #1. He's our worst enemy. The good news is that when we destroy Bush, we'll have won our biggest victory over terror yet. And the killing can begin to stop.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:31:35 AM PST

  •  I don't think the GWOT is lost (0+ / 0-)

    I think the current sitaution on Iraq is pretty pointless now, almost just another UN farce where troops sit on their hands while tribal and sectarian murder happen all around them.

    If we correctly refocus who we are after and why, and coherently present that message, I believe we can repair our tattered relations with all those nations who want to be our friends, but can't be bushy's friend.

    Most EU nations are starting to come around that there just may be a problem with religious extremists.  There's even rumblings from within Islam about bush-like right wing religious nuts hijacking the majority for the beneifit of a small group, and bringing misery and woe for all- just like our repub taliban here in the US.  The bad part: most Muslim nations do not have our ability to oragnize and vote against an incumbent government.

    •  GOWAT isn't lost. It's a fantasy. (5+ / 0-)

      The "global war on terror" is a myth.

      "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

      by chimpwatch on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:52:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Damn Straight (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Panda, mightymouse, Molly Martinez

        It's bullshit. It's a cover to justify teh seizure of dictatorial powers by the Executive. It's what Torture Boy Gonzalez is talking about when he is babbling about "inherent constitutional powers".

        This entire cabal from its inception in the Nixxon years has been all about establishing a Dictatorship here following a Straussian world view where lying as government policy is not the exception, it is the rule and all power is concentrated in the hands of the corporate oligarchy, fronted by a puppet occupying the imaginary office of the "Unitary Executive".

        The history of Republican presidents starting with Nixxon is a history of treason in its most insidious form. It masquerades as patriotism and freedom. After nearly 40 years of these same thugs' efforts to destroy Constitutional government, is it too much to ask they be finally brought to justice?

    •  Your comment reveals a dangerous ignorance (0+ / 0-)

      of how Bush policies have weakened the "political middle" of the entire Middle East. Osama is a Sunni terrorist. Saddam wouldn't let Osama into Iraq. Bush has driven Sunni's all over the WORLD (yes that includes those living in the U.S.) to Osama. The same process is happening with the Shiites, both Persian and Arab.  The whole Kurdish and Israeli layer of the problem you also don't appear to understand at all.
      We're funding all these groups with our oil purchases which are backed by China's purchase of our T-Bills.

      More virulent than ever, because of Bush's occuation of Iraq, the ONLY way to get "elected," to anything in the ME is to denounce the U.S. and Israel.

  •  It's raining rats (0+ / 0-)

    Kissinger, he's a big one.  Bush's visit to Vietnam must have scared him off the sinking ship.

    Borat On Daily Show: "In Kazakhstan We Have Midterm Elections Just Like You, The Next One Is In 30 Years"...

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:40:23 AM PST

  •  all the idiots like Koppel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, mightymouse

    who say we can't leave iraq need to visit the vietnam memorial and tell those people why we can't leave iraq.

  •  The comming genocide and what little we can do (0+ / 0-)

    The Shia are going to engage in genocide against the Sunni and this is going to get very very ugly.

    I had thought up until this week that a massive influx of competence AND troops could still turn it around but this has entered the late stages of the second final phase of a guerrilla war which is units openly engaging in prolonged combat.

    The problem with it at this point is the Democrats only have the power to screw with Bush not to actually DO anything.  We can't make law, we can only suggest it.

    We need to build America's understanding of what HAS gone on and get them to demand changes.  We need to expose the three basic lies they have used to sell this disaster to America.

    Examine, under oath, the colonels and captains requests for more troops.  Clearly show the American people that the army wanted more troops and for political reasons Bush left them hanging.

    Clearly expose the lies leading up to the war and the gross manipulation of intelligence

    Expose the field reports begging for changes in tactics that were ignored by Rummy.  That "stay the course" was either insanity or served Bushco's private interest, not America's.

    Want to watch Republican economic theories in action? Look at Iraq.

    by Michaelpb on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:50:22 AM PST

    •  We CAN make the law (0+ / 0-)

      A bill passed by both houses of Congress is the law of the land.  It is up to Bush to veto it if he disagrees with the law.

      I understand what you are saying: that Bush either may choose not to enforce the law, or veto the law.  But it is important for the Democrats to enact laws that land on his desk.  We will then know where he stands.

      •  Uh NO we can't (0+ / 0-)

        Anything passed by congress is still a bill until as the saying goes "it is signed into law".  It is the signing by the president that transforms a bill into law.

        The only way congress can make a law is after veto by the president they override the veto by a 2/3 majority, not likely in this climate.

        Sheesh.

        Want to watch Republican economic theories in action? Look at Iraq.

        by Michaelpb on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:54:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Put pressure on "honest" Republicans to (0+ / 0-)

          help override the veto -- or suffer the consequences of their failure to uphold the CONSTITUTION.

          Santa is a Credit Card Republican. They get the credit, you get the bill. BEWARE REDS BEARING "Gifts."

          by Neon Mama on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:32:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think we engaged in supporting various (0+ / 0-)

      Sunni and Shiite factions against each other, solely to drive a political solution in the US' interest. This behavior along with torture.... means we lost our most important strategic advantage, being seen as an "honest broker." Stephen Ambrose wrote glowingly about the perception of U.S. troops in WWII by civilian populations. Bush put our troops in an impossible situation and they are not trusted.

  •  bu$hco was WRONG from the start (0+ / 0-)

    to use the current "strategy" to fight terrorism. you can't fight an ideology and a religion.

    in addition, the notion Iraq is the "central front on the war on terra" is all bullshit-- it's a cover for the real reason we are in Iraq, the oil and the "Iran problem".. which also is about oil and who controls it.

    there have been plenty of terrorist attacks in places like Great Britain, Spain, etc., perpetrated by people who never set foot in Iraq. they are motivated by something else entirely.

    the real question at this point is:

    are the Dems in congress going to stay the course?

    looks to me like they are.

    "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

    by Superpole on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:56:30 AM PST

  •  It's About the Money (0+ / 0-)

    "America's War of Terror," as Borat calls it, is about a number of things.

    Stealing the Oil.

    Doing the will of Israel.

    Planting a big ol' Merkan footprint in the region, a stepping-off point for wars of aggression whereever energey resources or Israel's interests might dictate.

    Letting the world know we're not only #1, but numero only (Israel, of course, excepted) and that we'll slaughter anyone we, or Israel, might wish slaughtered anytime, any place.

    But it's also that just making and carrying on war year after year is big, and profitable, business.

    That's why Cheney has told us that the struggle will last forever, give or take a millennium or two.

    The Russian commies ceased to be a danger justifying the expenditure of brazillions of dollars each year on war and war preparations.

    We'll have to fight China some day, but well they're rather large and aren't attacking us . . . in fact, we moved most of our manufacturing activity to that country, and they hold so much of our debt that if they wanted to, they could crater our economy overnight.

    Of course, we'd like to be killing ni**ers, but Africa has its AIDS epidemic, and no nuclear-armed states, and well we've been able to secure access to most of their resources with payoffs to corrupt leaders etc. so a War on Africa, at least one with bombs and whatnot, could be a hard sell right now.

    Thank God, there are Muslims.

    And Heaven seems to have situated a lot of them right around where the energy resources are.

    So it's war on Muslims, on "terror," and keep those unaccounted-for, "support the trooops" appropriations coming and don't even think of making AmeriKills show us the books!

    War is Sweet, right Poppy?

    9/11/2001 NEVER FORGET. "Things do not happen. They are made to happen." (John F. Kennedy)

    by Oatmeal Porridge on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:02:17 AM PST

    •  Both Israel and Arab states are being (0+ / 0-)

      manipulated as the excuse for oil and power grabs. Stop falling for hate rhetoric. Balfour declaration was made while opposite promises made to Arabs in early 20th century. They all feared the same ogre they see now ------ Arabs united as they had been during Ottoman Empire before collapse.   Blame the victims since then.  All bulls##t to distract from reality.

      Santa is a Credit Card Republican. They get the credit, you get the bill. BEWARE REDS BEARING "Gifts."

      by Neon Mama on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:37:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let me take a shot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, 4Freedom, Neon Mama

    War is a state of conflict between two nation states. This global effort of the Bush administration to control agressive religious fundamentalists is not a war. Everybody on this list knows that.

    Terror is a condition of the mind. War on Drugs, as stupid as it is, at least is a concrete object, sort of like having a war on venetian blinds. But you can get your head around it. War on Poverty, as idealistic as it sounds, is silly too. Poverty is a condition. It's like having a war on melanoma. At the stage when these phrases are coined, the phraser has been captured by the advertising community and has lost interest in the object of the "war." The phrase becomes shorthand for, "I'm a good guy."

    Terror, insurgency, suicide attacks, etc. All the hallmarks of a powerless minority exerting control over a powerful majority. It has been happening for generations, but in our time, South Africa, Ireland, Sri Lanka come to mind. Each movement's terrorist is another man's hero. Such conflicts are not won, have never been won, and never will be won by military intervention.

    At this stage, no nation state will come to our aid in this foolish enterprise. Why should they bail us out? We spat on them. No nation state in the Middle East that is neighbor to Iraq will cooperate without some benefit to themselves. They have no reason to do otherwise as they are in the driver's seat now. I suspect that in addition to more loss of American lives in Iraq, it is going to cost us plenty to get out of the mess this stupid man has gotten us into. We should not let those Democrats who voted to give him the authority off the hook, either. They failed us miserably. And there were plenty around in DC who urged scepticism.

    Lastly. Henry Kissinger is now, and has always been, a weasel. He gets on the train when it's safe.

    At least I feel better.

    "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Leo Tolstoy

    by Miss Pip on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:03:27 AM PST

  •  Good commentary--essential reading content & form (0+ / 0-)

    Venceremos! (We shall overcome!)

    by Redfire on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:03:28 AM PST

  •  What Lies! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Casper

    If Iraq is the  "Central Front", regardless of what you want to call the war- why did Shitboy send a measly 140,000 troops? That's not even one Army group, just a little more than half of one.

    In WW2 We fielded 6 Army groups against an enemy facing several Red Army groups on its other front and a couple British and a French one along with us. That's how you deal with a "Cental Front".

    It's a lie on the face of it, obviously. Too bad so many Americans can't put two and two together.

  •  wrong conclusion - from flawed data set. (0+ / 0-)

    Bush has been lying about Iraq from day 1.  It is not part of the WOT.  Getting him to admit he lost WOT due to losing Iraq only invites more grief.

    In my view, the best avenue is to link Bush's blunder in Iraq as the distraction it was to handling bin Laden.  

    "There's been a little complication with my complication"

    by dash888 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:14:48 AM PST

  •  But....but.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Casper

    our soldiers are going to be greeted with cheering crowds tossing flowers.

    Right? Rumsfeld said so. So, of course it'll happen.

    Right?

    ::::crickets:::

  •  Iraq is the most epic systemic failure in... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, mightymouse, 4Freedom, John Casper

    my lifetime.  It makes Vietnam look like a great triumph by comparison.  

    It's not just the 4 Horsemen (W, Dick, Rummy, and Wolfie).  It's the likes of Kissinger, who looked to rehabilitate his failure in Vietnam.  It's Powell, who knew better but went along w/ it anyhow.  It's the score of "journalists" who, at best, failed to tell the truth, and, at worst, basically lied to the American public.

    So now, the "elders" formed a commission so that they could get the Dauphin out of his biggest mess of all.  Kissinger finally admits that, once again, he was spectacularly wrong.  Thing is, I'm not sure how much it will help.  

    W clearly appears to be as delusional as ever.  It's hard to walk someone off a precipice when they clearly don't want to leave.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:19:45 AM PST

  •  Ascent of the DarkSyde (0+ / 0-)

    Nobly with,

    So the terrorist themselves agree that if Bush can't win in Iraq, that they've beaten him and us, and won the epic struggle of civilizations,

    DarkSyde ascends upward unto the heavens of the hyperbolic gravitas of the mainstream journalistic pundit.  WOW, "the epic struggle of civilizations!" Whew, I am bought low by the veritable heavyosity of it all!

    Steeled by DarkSyde's stolid call to battle, I, with trembling fingers brought to my keyboard, pledge myself a warrior in "the Central Front in the War on Terror." I swear to stand shoulder to shoulder with DarkSyde, on the light side if need be, even unto the Thermopylae of this "epic struggle." Together my brother (or sister) we again shall slay the Persian!

    With stern countenance, we shall fight the corruption of lamb. Starbuck's coffee shall not be sacrificed for Turkish coffee. Backgammon must be swept away. The self-sacrifice of community cannot supplant the self-interest of libertarianism.

    DarkSyde, I join you in self-sacrifice for self-interest! Yes my fellow internet warriors, fighting on the DarkSyde, we shall do battle for all that is worthy. 'Till victory or the ignominy of our hardrives crashing!

  •  Nooooooooo!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Casper

    i agree with kissenger: that there is no chance of US military victory in Iraq, and that the US better start figuring out how to contain to Iraq the chaos we've caused; to avoid it spreading to regional war.

    But it is extremely upsetting to agree with criminal kissenger on anything.

  •  So Kissinger is with the terrists?.n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle

    -5.13,-5.63 Start saving money for '08 NOW! IMPEACH...IMPEACH...IMPEACH.. Now more than EVER!

    by rickeagle on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:36:48 AM PST

  •  Kissinger is such a vicious little man (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    I wouldn't be surprised if he gave Bush bad advice (Stay the Course) just so he could have the pleasure of seeing his old rivals (Cheney and Rumsfeld) go down in flames

  •  It reminds me of a bit from The Onion(tm)! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    overturned turtle, Neon Mama

    So the terrorist themselves agree that if Bush can't win in Iraq, that they've beaten him and us, and won the epic struggle of civilizations?

    I recall a page from The Onion's "Our Dumb Century."  The headline read something like "President Ford Hands U.S. Over to Vietnamese"  They had a nice doctored photo showing Ford standing humbly by as the Vietnamese Premier of the time time addressed Americans in an open-air ceremony.  Cool!

    Why, oh why, oh why are the comedians the only ones who are allowed to speak the truth?

  •  Guess Who Just Caught Up? (0+ / 0-)

    This stuff makes golf look like porn.

    by Toes on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:40:31 AM PST

  •  Statement of FAct (0+ / 0-)

    You said :

    Of course, there's always the obligatory rejoinder that we 'cannot leave right away' or Iraq would 'descend into civil war and chaos.'

    This in not an obligatory remark, it's a satement of fact that bears repeating because, apperently, many Americans have difficultly dealing with the prospect.

    I am a pacifist that was against this war from the start,but I can recognize we have created a bloody mess that will be very dificult to resolve, but one we bear responsibility for.

    For you think it will be a simple mayyer to leave Iraq?  How would you suggest to do so? What would be the consequences of an abrupt withdrawal?

    I'm really interested in your opinion on this., please reply.

  •  Lost the war on terror? (0+ / 0-)

    I believe he last his mind.

    (Bush) believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. -- Colbert

    by makemefree on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:04:07 AM PST

  •  Saving 'Sonny' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpeachKingBushII
    Bush family guardians are trying to rescue the president from his failed policies. Will he listen this time?

    Even before the electoral repudiation of President Bush, or "Sonny," as Colin Powell refers to him, the guardians of the Bush family trust surfaced as the presumptive executive committee of the executive branch. For years, Bush's father and his former national security team have attempted to rescue the president from himself -- and the clutches of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their neoconservative centurions. Earlier this year, the elder Bush quietly approached a retired four-star general to inquire whether he would be willing to replace Rumsfeld, but that premature coup came to naught. Several of the father's associates personally warned President Bush before the Iraq war that it would lead to sectarian civil war, only to be dismissed with disdain. Immediately after the invasion, James Baker said, "I told him not to do that," a friend of Baker's told me.

    http://www.suntimes.com/...

    Republicans: "They are more interested in protecting themselves than minors." Joe Scarborough.

    by William Domingo on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:07:44 AM PST

  •  If you read Kissenger's statement closely, (2+ / 0-)

    he didn't say George Bush's War cannot be won.  He said it cannot be won

    in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support

    Just what is the "political processes of the democracies"?  Democratic control of the House and Senate.

    Ol' Hank is helping to lay the ground work for when the bottom finally does totally fall out from under us it can all be blamed on the Democrats.

    I suggest rather than feeling jubilant over this "admission" by the original Hawk, we better come up with an effective counter program.  Or it will be the aftermath of Viet Nam all over again -- The Democrats are wimps who cut and run.  

    This war MUST be securely hung around George Bush's neck beyond any doubt in the peoples' minds.  Every Democratic officeholder must be persuaded to do just that everytime they get in front of a TV camera or a microphone.  

    As for myself, I will never refer to this conflict as the "War in Iraq" or as the "war on terror".  I shall refer to it as it really is -- George Bush's War.  I suggest everyone do that as well.

  •  Chimp in Chief in front of Ho Chi Ming statue... (0+ / 0-)

    Remember all the heat Jane Fonda got from sitting on a VC anti-aircraft gun?  Well take a look at the Chimp in Chief grinning in front of a statue of Ho Chi Ming.

    Read some of the comments -- especially the "Secession Letter from California"

    This is a classic --

    http://blogs.kansas.com/...

  •  Bush and Cheney, isolated and w/shared psychosis. (0+ / 0-)

    Shared Psychotic Disorder or Folie a Deux.

    http://www.emedicine.com/...

  •  What is up with the site (0+ / 0-)

    How many vomit diaries can be repeating?

    IRAQ IS THE REPUBLICANS' VIETNAM

    by BarnBabe on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:35:05 AM PST

  •  Iraq is not the WOT (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone should be aware that Iraq has nothing to do with the "war on terror" so losing in Iraq is just that, losing in Iraq. I would retitle this diary as "Bush Lost His War on Terror" since it's the Bush/Cheney position that Iraq is part of the so called war on terror.

  •  Losing war on terror? (0+ / 0-)
    I can't believe Al Qaeda has been all that successful. Nothing much in the U. S. after Sept. 11. Some attacks in Europe, but not nearly as much as there could be.
    As for Iraq, you have to be a Republican to believe it is part of the war on terror.
  •  The construction of the Dolchstosslegende. (0+ / 0-)

    Ah, I can see how this is going to go.

    We're in a terrible situation. It was a bad idea, and maybe it would have been unsuccessful had Grand Admiral Thrawn himself been in charge. But it was bungled at every turn by incompetence from the highest levels.

    Now that the grownups are returning to power, it's left to them to clean up the mess. At this point, look for the whining to begin that we were six months away from winning the Iraqis' Hearts and Minds when the hippiecrats pulled out. That the ensuing civil war and likely Taliban (it's too much to hope for a insular, secular dictatorship, isn't it) to arise there will be the fault of the Dems who had to put a stop to this whole misbegotten mess.

    It'll be the same crap we've been hearing about Vietnam. Get ready for another thirty years of the same shit. Watch Rambo 2016 earnestly ask his superior, "Can we win this time?". Watch another mad military display of power proceed, and watch our future Commander Codpiece claim that "the ghosts of Iraq have been laid to rest beneath the {sands,trees,ice,tundra,whatever} of wherever we bombed now."

    Get your popcorn now.

  •  Democrats wear dresses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greendem

    It was the Democrats who, because of political cowardice, voted to give GW the authority to invade Iraq. GW made Iraq a central fight against terrorists and the Dems went along. 88% of the electorate agreed. Blame everyone who voted for this damn war. Bush is just continuing what the Dems condoned. Not one Dem voiced a concern of the enivitable civil war,  no surprise to anyone with at least a pea for a brain.

  •  What Hank really means (0+ / 0-)

    "the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors including Iran if any progress is to be made in the region."

    You have to understand Hank's diplomatic use of words.  "[E]nter into dialogue with" means "bomb the shit out of".

    Why does anyone really care what this war criminal has to say anyway?

  •  Hey Bush (0+ / 0-)

    Are those tracks on your head the treads of the bus tires Henry threw you under?

    You should have known better than to take advice from a War Criminal. God only hopes carpet-bombing a country nearby our quagmire war isn't on Henry's agenda again.

  •  Not Sure... (0+ / 0-)

    If the President was being truthful about the significance of Iraq to the war on terror and the stakes therein, doesn't it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?

    I'm not sure It's possible to win or lose, an imaginary 'war', let alone attribute 'True or False' to statements and actions surrounding it . We need to keep our perspective on just who we are dealing with here. I just watched the BBC mini-series The Power of Nightmares which I highly recommend to all - and especially kossacks.

    The series points out what tends to get lost in the blare of the Noise Machine - Neocons believe in rule by fear and deception. It is their only weapon against the mass of humanity that threatens their rule. Logic and rationality are not necessary or even desirable to their goals; and truth and falsehood are merely words. All statements and actions are judged by them based on how they fit in with their view of the world - does it further the aims of the power elite and does it maintain control over the dangerous underclass, us. In that way they resemble in many ways their supposed enemies, the Communists. We, the American people, have been lied to for generations in order to maintain the myth that we have a democracy in which we have a voice and a choice in its leadership.

    If something should happen to cause the American people to awaken from our Wal-Mart induced hypnosis, it would be disastrous to the rulers and their corporate sponsors. And events in the world are occuring which threaten to expose those lies. Imagine the chaos this portends for the ruling elite and corporatists.

    My belief is there is no 'War on Terror' There is a war on the American people being waged by our own leaders. There is no question of 'winning' or 'losing' the war because to the True Believers, the war is interminable. And once the people believe in the existence of the 'war', it lasts forever.

    Man has only those rights he can defend -- Jack McCoy

    by danno50 on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 05:17:47 PM PST

  •  Two words... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and maybe I'm in a bad mood, but...

    fucking Kissinger

  •  When will someone walk into the White House (0+ / 0-)

    and ask for the Presidential Resignation? This is more over than Watergate ... And there is no responsible vp to take over from the second position ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site