The 2008 Outlook for Iraq: The Fun Never Ends

[Anyone who reads here regularly knws I adore Greg's work but I did not know until tonight that he now has a blog of his own, separate from Editor & Publisher magazine.]

Can you say, "What exit strategy?" There. I knew you could.

Greg Mitchell, editor at Editor & Publisher and someone I admire highly, posts on his own blog about the very bleak outlook on Iraq and our continued occupation of that country, including why any hope of our pulling out is diminishing rapidly.

Go read. Greg is always well worth the time.

Majority of Americans Dislike Bush's Veto Of Iraq Funding Bill With Timeline Attached

OK, I fully and completely understand why 54% of Americans dislike Bush's presidential veto. What I don't get is that more than 40% of Americans APPROVE of Bush's veto.

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of President Bush's decision to veto a war spending bill that called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq in 2008, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday.

The poll found that 54 percent of Americans opposed Bush's May 1 veto, while 44 percent backed the president's decision to kill the $124 billion bill.Now that the veto has been cast, 57 percent of Americans said they want Congress to send another spending bill with a timetable for withdrawal back to the White House, the poll found -- but 61 percent would support a new bill that dropped the timetables in favor of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet to maintain American support. (Full results [PDF])

While it found that more Americans believe Congress, rather than the president, should be responsible for setting policy in Iraq, the survey may give the Democratic leadership some pause. The percentage of people saying Democratic control of Congress is good for the country dropped from 59 percent in a March poll to 51 percent now.

Bush and Benchmarks: More Lies and Games At Expense of U.S. Troops' and Civilians' Lives

Why is everyone applauding President Bush for his statement yesterday that he thought "benchmarks" might be a good idea re: Iraq?
First, Bush should NEVER have been given a blank check to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, no matter what cost (financial, logistical, and human lives) in Iraq (and for this, I hold every single member of Congress as responsible as I do Cowboy Clown Dubya). I was one of a large but often none too vocal group who saw quite clearly that Bush and Cheney and the Neocon Express were taking us into Iraq on a case made of lies and greed. To this day, more than four years after the first American forces landed in Iraq, Bush and Cheney continue to promote the idea that Iraq somehow had some large part in planning and executing the September 11th, 2001 (9-11) attacks on the U.S. when it seemed clearly untrue back in 2003 and disproven countless times since then.

Second, Bush won't allow ANY compromise on his part whatsoever. He may say that benchmarks may be a good idea, but he certainly won't allow any checks and balances applied to what he wants to do in Iraq. He says this only to fool Americans into thinking he'll play ball; he doesn't even care that now a majority of Republican voters want troops out of Iraq in the next six months.

Third, don't fool yourself. Bush will be out of office before the U.S. is out of Iraq.

LA Times To The Bushies: Withdraw From Iraq

I'm sure Bush and Rove will insist this is just a tiny focus group since the LA Times, in calling for withdrawal of our troops from Bush's "slam dunk" war on Iraq, only boasts the fourth largest circulation of any newspaper in this country.

What's Your Call on The Iraq Funding Bills And Veto?

Considering Bush and the current White House define "compromise" as complete capitulation from the other party, how do you see the matter resolved re: Monday's Congressional Iraq funding-with-withdrawal-timetable Bush raced to veto?

Even though most Republicans/conservatives/libertarians support getting U.S. troops out of Dodge City East ASAP, Bush has never been inclined to listen to anyone but his strange little circle of neocon nitwits.

The Bastard Shot Down Any Timetable For Leaving Iraq

No, President Bush yet again connected Iraq to those who allegedly (I'm still unwilling to trust the intelligence on the 9-11 attacks considering how often we've been lied to) attacked the U.S. on September 11th.

How many times has this link been proven non-existent?

Well, about as many times as we've heard they've killed the "leader of al Qaeda in Iraq" (dozens of false reports on al Zawahiri and now, the first much-unconfirmed report of the death of the new "Iraq #1, al Masri). Also no clarification from Bush, of course, that those they call al Qaeda in Iraq are NOT the al Qaeda floating through Pakistan and other areas.

Lies lies lies. And people die die die.

Senate Passes Its Own Iraq Bill Complete With Timetable to Remove U.S. Troops

And, of course, the President (always in the mood for a tantrum) insists he will veto both this bill and the one passed by the House.

God forbid Bush pay a nanosecond's attention to the will of the people of the United States, the same people he is supposed to work for.

While Bush Tantrums, House Passes Iraq War Spending Bill With Timetable for Troop Withdrawal

You simply can't be surprised that President Bush had his umpteenth tantrum of this week about this bill, hell bent to insist absolutely no one - certainly NOT the American people - should be able to suggest what he should do.

Here's the story from WaPo; you can see how House of Representatives' members voted here.

The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008.

The bill promptly drew a veto threat from President Bush.

After four hours of floor debate yesterday and today, the House approved the bill by a vote of 218 to 212. One lawmaker voted present and three did not vote.

In a brief but sharply worded speech at the White House with several uniformed service members and their families standing behind him, Bush said House Democrats had engaged in "an act of political theater" and "voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

Saying that the bill contains "too much pork" and includes restrictions "that would require an army of lawyers to interpret," Bush vowed, "I will veto it if it comes to my desk." He expressed confidence that his veto would be sustained, pointing to the closeness of the vote.

The bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represents a major challenge to Bush, who opposes any mandates or timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Pork is always a given with the House of Reprehensibles; but Bush should talk considering how he squanders money.

And Quite The Challenge It Is, Too

The New York Times on the Iraq vote this week, in an Op/Ed entitled, "Congress' Challenge on Iraq":

The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government — and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.

It is normally the president who provides the leadership for American foreign policy and decides when there needs to be a change of course. But Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to do either, and the country cannot afford to wait out the rest of his term. Given Mr. Bush’s failure, Congress has a responsibility to do all it can to use Washington’s remaining leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow an American withdrawal — no matter when it happens — and to ensure that the credibility and readiness of the United States military is preserved.

House Democrats have wisely moved beyond their earlier infatuation with mere deadlines. The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation, which also provides the next round of money for the war, require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. United States and Iraqi security forces must be allowed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni, disarm sectarian militias and provide “evenhanded security for all Iraqis.”

The benchmarks also require the Iraqi government to take measurable steps toward national reconciliation: equitably distributing oil revenues, opening up more political and economic opportunities to the Sunni minority and amending the constitution to discourage further fragmentation.

The legislation does not settle for more empty promises — from Mr. Bush and the Iraqis. It would require the president to provide Congress, by July, with an initial detailed report on Iraq’s efforts to meet these benchmarks. By October, the Iraqi government would have to complete a specific set of legislative and constitutional steps. Failure to meet these deadlines would trigger the withdrawal of all American combat forces — but not those training Iraqis or fighting Al Qaeda — to be concluded in April 2008. If the benchmarks were met, American combat forces would remain until the fall of 2008.

The measure would also bar sending any unit to Iraq that cannot be certified as fully ready. It sets a reasonable 365-day limit on combat tours for the Army and a shorter 210-day combat tour limit for the Marines. As for how many troops can remain in Iraq — until the House’s deadlines for withdrawal — the legislation imposes no reduction on the level of roughly 132,000 in place at the start of this year.

Critics will complain that the House is doing the Pentagon’s planning. But the Pentagon and Mr. Bush have clearly failed to protect America’s ground forces from the ever more costly effects of extended, accelerated and repeated deployments.

If Iraq’s leaders were truly committed to national reconciliation and reining in their civil war, there would be no need for benchmarks or deadlines. But they are not. If Mr. Bush were willing to grasp Iraq’s horrifying reality, he would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American troops should not be trapped in the middle of a blood bath that neither Mr. Bush nor Iraq’s leaders have the vision or the will to halt.

Too fricking bad if the White House and Pentagon complains. They've had four-plus years now to get something, anything right yet have failed each and every time to do so. They couldn't be trusted in 2003 and can hardly be trusted now.

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.