Turns Out Bush Does Have A Timeline For Pulling Out of Iraq

It just happens to be about 40 or 50 or 60 years from now, while our soldiers play Halliburton cops for big oil.

USA Today's Founder: Once Supportive of Bush, The First To Call For U.S. Troop Exit From Iraq

Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, once quite supportive of the president's "grand mission" in Iraq, also became one of the first (and for too long, only) editorialists/political pundits to call for an exit strategy to bring American soldiers home from Iraq. I've quoted from many of his columns on the subject because they are lucid and infinitely understandable at the same time demonstrating that sane people who exist to the right of dead center often share many of the same aspirations, savvy administration, and intelligent discourse with those to the left of center.

As Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher notes, Neuharth even strongly recommended that, given the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in Bush's "another day, another war" kingdom, Bush NOT seek re-election in November 2004.

Cindy Sheehan: "Good Riddance, Attention Whore"

If you haven't yet heard, Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a son named Casey who went to Iraq for Bush and became one of fast-rising statistics of U.S. soldiers dead, is stepping down as the "face" and voice of the anti-war movement. While she's tired after years of fighting to stop our fighting, however, Cindy isn't just tired, she's angry.

Buzzflash offers the guest contribution she made for Memorial Day; I encourage you to read it. I think it raised some questions for me. If you have the same reaction, please share in comments here.

Meanwhile, I want to thank Cindy for all she did. This woman had already gone through hell when she decided to stand up and it only got tougher the more she was willing to exercise courage and standards our elected officials rarely do. Remember too that there are many other mothers (and friends and other family members) speaking up and out.

On Bush's Iraq War Second Blank Check; How They Voted

David Sirota updates us on the House Dem vote and proposed filibuster on the latest Bush demand for a blank check in Iraq (see here for the earlier post and keep reading to hear how opinion polls - notably the latest New York Times/CBS News poll - tell us this war is now more unpopular with Americans than at ANY time in its four-plus year combat history).

To update my post earlier today, House Democrats passed the key rule vote by a vote of 218-201. This is the most important vote on Iraq since the authorization in 2002, because it deliberately sets the stage to give president Bush a blank check for the Iraq War. The Roll Call vote can be found [here].

Those Democrats with the courage to vote no were: Waters Harman, Clay, Moore (WI),McNerney, Kucinich and Stark. Democrats not voting were Cardoza, DeGette, Engel, Gutierrez, Jones (OH), Lewis (GA), Oberstar and Shea-Porter. House Democrats are expected to be delivering speeches later tonight claiming they actually oppose giving Bush a blank check because they are expected to vote against a Republican amendment. But as noted earlier today, this is an obvious effort to confuse the public. The rule vote that most Democrats voted for was the key vote in that it deliberately set up the situation whereby Republicans could pass their blank check amendment.

In other news, Sens. Kerry and Leahy are the latest Senate Democrats to issue statements saying they will vote against the blank check in the Senate, but to date not a single senator has indicated they will filibuster. This all happened just as the New York Times put a story on its website announcing that "Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

Bush Gives Kiss of Death to Dems on Day That Will Live in Ignominy

You have to hand it to Dubya. (I doubt the spoiled frat boy thinks these up himself since it would interfere with his naps, his four days off from every seven day week, and scratching himself. Also, that's why he's got The Dick Cheney and Karl(oad) of Rove on hand.)

Today, he walked into the White House Rose Garden and gave the Democrats the kiss of death - much as he planted on Senator Joe Lieberman (D... no, I.... who the F knows anymore) on that infamous night a few years ago at one of his famous addresses.

By "kissing" the Dems today with his thanks for their capitulation on Iraq, he made sure that the vast majority of thinking Americans will be SURE to hold the Democrats responsible for the work of his corrupt administration that still holds razor grip on all of Capitol Hill. [Did you also note how Bush was saber rattling even louder at Iran as well? Is this the reason for doubling the American troop presence in Iraq when he originally wanted to send less than 20K more soldiers to Iraq?]

I suspect the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates who can show their concern for the troops WITHOUT letting Bush steamroll anymore are the ones most Americans will listen to in the coming months. So far, I'm not seeing standouts (and we need them, badly).

Your take?

Fellow Independent Voters: Time To Stop Fence Sitting?

What do you think?

If the Democrats could not get a secure majority to override a veto from Bush on the Iraq War timetable/exit strategy issue, is it time for like-minded registered Independent voters to jump off the fence they sit upon and register Democrat so they can better participate in the process? Remember, most states require only registered Republicans or Democrats can vote in a primary; fairly few allow independents to cast a vote for presidential nominee.

And We Need a War Czar Why?

"Czars" in American government are what a president appoints to create a lucrative new position for someone owed a political favor and what amounts to a way to pass the blame of a problem around to more people.

Interestingly enough, among those in the know, almost all said the perfect "war czar" for America, if one had to be apointed at all, is Colin Powell, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State for Bush. However, all these same people acknowledged that Bush couldn't and wouldn't call on Powell because, IF Powell accepted (and this was in doubt), it was likely Powell's first act would be to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq as immediately as possible.

So we get this general instead.

And what are we paying the folks at the Pentagon if we need a war czar, too?

Bush's Wars: Strangely, They Can Only One In Three Direction: Worse, Worser (eh?), And Worst

While Afghanistan's Taliban (the same people Bush and Cheney claim to have annihilated six years ago) adopts President Bush's rule to only allow journalists and the rest of what calls itself media to report lies, the violence in Afghanistan and its neighbor, Iraq, only continues to defy all laws of basic statistics by worsening each and every day (even a lame coin toss should give you the occasional "win" but Bush makes us lose each and every damned time).

Here's what I noted at All Things Democrat:

April was the nation’s bloodiest overall month (we set terrible new records there all the time) since we arrived and May is off to a tragically busy start; many U.S. soldiers along with more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed in operations just this past weekend.

It’s not a case that this escalating violence is completely about Bush’s so-called surge or escalation of military actions in Iraq. First, we already sent many of the “surge” troops in already and second, many forces are already working on new “surge” orders on the ground. So it’s a fabrication to claim that the heightened violence is only because “insurgents are scared and doing what they can now because they know that Bush means business THIS time.”

Hugely nasty attacks occurred yesterday (Sunday) in Iraq, with bodies found all over Baghdad, including those of at least eight American GIs. [Afghanistan worses every day as well.] At the same time, a major general, in a piece in the Boston Globe, says Iraq will get FAR deadlier still (quite the effortless slam dunk promised):

BAGHDAD — A US Army general yesterday forecast a rise in deaths among American forces in the coming months, a prediction underscored by the announcement that a roadside bomb had killed six US soldiers and a foreign journalist north of Baghdad. Five other American troops died elsewhere over the weekend.

Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division, said casualties will climb as American troops dig into enemy territory as part of a stepped-up military operation ordered by President Bush in January. Lynch, who oversees a swath of territory to the south and east of Baghdad, gave his bleak prediction on the heels of the deadliest month this year for American forces in Iraq.

In April, 104 troops were killed, the fourth time since the beginning of 2005 that US deaths exceeded 100 in a single month. At least 25 troops have been killed in May, a grim start to a month in which Democrats are expected to keep up pressure on the White House to plan a withdrawal from Iraq.

Rescind Bush's Authorization To Wage War In Iraq

Southern Senator Robert Byrd has proposed a bill that would effectively halt and repeal President Bush's authorization to wage war in Iraq, something Bush demanded and got (too easily, IMHO) back in 2002, aided by bunkerfuls of Bush Administration lies and a Congress far too frightened to talk reason.

Now NY Senator (and 2008 Democratic presidential helpful) Hillary Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon.

Yet this legislation is NOT brand spanking new. Senior Virginia Senator John Warner - and a Republican, at that! - first proposed this months ago, although without much attention given.

I very much support a repeal of the president's authority. What say you?

Couched In The Iraq "Surge" Vote Is Very Sweet Deal for American Fuel/Energy Companies

I am massively pissed that the Senate voted today to approve an additional - and whopping! - $122 Billion (we've already spent well more than half a trillion on the war that would pay for itself) for Bush's Iraq "surge" regardless of provisions for a time line for an exit strategy.

But getting too little attention is a part of this bill which HANDS mostly American energy/fuel companies a deal for Iraq oil which will give them an unheard of percentage of profits. I would think that Iraq oil belongs to Iraq and that the Bushies should NOT be able to give it away to Exxon, etc.

From Think Progress on the Iraq "redeployment":

The Senate Appropriations Committee “approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also calling on President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The bill, approved by a voice vote, is similar to one the House began debating Thursday. The White House has threatened to veto the House measure and issued a veto threat against an earlier, similar version of the Senate withdrawal language.”

And once again, the bully monarch Bush demands things go HIS way, or the low way.

More Political Cartoons Part 1

On the subject of Bush, Cheney, the Iraq Escalation/Surge, and Tony Blair's announcement of Great Britain's exit strategy for its troops from Iraq; from New Jersey, India, and Canada... all available at Political Cartoons.