With Bush, The Damned Lies Keep Coming After HE Refused to Give Troops a Pay Raise

The words Bush and lies go together as surely as hot fudge sauce and vanilla ice cream, Halliburton and stealing/overbilling, Cheney and nasty secrets, government and crime, not to mention Republican "Christian moralists and kinky prostitutes. So why should this surprise us? Well, except that Bush and his GOP loyalists have refused for 4+ years to properly equip our troops and that just a few weeks ago, they insisted soldiers did NOT need a pay raise and would block any measure to give them one:

President Bush, ratcheting up a fight with Congress over Iraq, accused Democrats on Friday of conducting a political debate on the war while delaying action on money to upgrade equipment and give troops a pay raise.

"It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed," Bush said in the Rose Garden after meeting with veterans and military families.

Bush spoke two days after Senate Republicans thwarted a Democratic proposal to pull out troops from Iraq. Bush said that instead of approving money for the war, "the Democratic leaders chose to have a political debate on a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq."

Despite Bush's suggestion that the bill is a must-pass measure that would pay for critical war programs, the legislation is not an appropriations bill that feeds military spending accounts. Called the defense authorization bill, the legislation is a policy measure used by Congress to influence the management of major defense programs, set goals and guide the 2008 military spending bill.

Estimate of Iraq Surge "Success" As Easy As Nailing Jelly To a Tree

Just since Sunday night, I've noticed that the message regarding Iraq and Bush's surge/escalation varies with more frequency than President Bush butchers the word nuclear into nukular.

First, it was abundantly clear that Bush refused to heed any of the warnings of military experts who insisted it was foolhardy to go into Iraq with anything less than 400,000 troops which is why we rolled into Baghdad with substantially less than half that number. But that's OK, Bush insisted, because he was listening to his men on the ground (defined as talking to people who talk to people who talk to other people who then talk to neocons in Washington) and if they said they needed more warm bodies in Iraq, he'd provide them. Except he didn't.

Second, when he planned this surge, he said it was for a very limited time period and would require, at most, about 15,000 American soldiers. Except that he started it before he had authorization and, rather than the slight "bump" in numbers, Bush will have more than 200,000 troops in Iraq before Christmas when we've had far less than half that number operating there for sometime.

Third, he's added the warm bodies, but these troops can't get the equipment they need -and the Republican Pentagon is responsible for that; they get the money, use it on everything but the soldiers, and then point to the Democrats as to blame for "bankrupting" our fighting men and women. These troops also don't have any better orders than they've had for a long time. Troops without a concrete mission aren't all that useful to anyone concerned.

Fourth, tied to the previous two, commanders are saying we don't have sufficient numbers of troops on the ground even without the surge. Shall we assume Bush isn't listening now that he's told us all the military has to do is ask and they shall receive?

Fifth, CentCom has doubled its air attacks on Iraq which isn't good for land-based soldiers OR civilians. "Friendly fire" deaths are up dramatically. Also, security on the ground AND air is so bad, concludes Great Britain information sources, that all British and American troops should be removed immediately. [Sadly, the Iraqis have no choice but to stay there.]

Sixth, the deadline date established to determine when a full and accurate analysis of whether Bush's "surge" is working keeps getting pushed back. John McCain, for example, said a couple of months would in NO WAY be enough to tell whether the Bush plan is working and then, practically in the same breath, when asked how long was needed to evaluate the surge's success, kept a straight face as Manic Depressive McCain replied, "A couple of months." Some estimates insist we won't know until around the beginning of 2009 whether the surge worked, which just happens to coincide with the time Bush will leave the White House (unless we can indict him first).

More Than 60% Of Americans Say We Should Never Have Gone Into Iraq; 63% Wants Troop Withdrawal Before 2008

Republicans and even some Democrats insist they know what American citizens - and the critical demographic subset of America called Norman Rockwell-painted Ma and Pa U.S. voter - most want from their elected officials and others who run Washington. Yet opinion polls demonstrate the lawmakers and especially the White House (currently run into the ground by Edgar BergenKarl Rove and his "front man", Charlie McCarthy George W. Bush) seem to have no genuine clue re: "the will of the people." Check this out:

[...] there’s a strange paradox here. The decibel level of the fin-de-Bush rage is a bit of a red herring. In truth, there is some consensus among Americans about the issues that are dividing both parties. The same May poll that found the country so wildly off-track showed agreement on much else. Sixty-one percent believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq, and 63 percent believe we should withdraw by 2008. Majorities above 60 percent also buy broad provisions of the immigration bill — including the 66 percent of Republicans (versus 72 percent of Democrats) who support its creation of a guest-worker program.

What these figures suggest is that change is on its way, no matter how gridlocked Washington may look now. However much the G.O.P. base hollers, America is not going to round up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants, or build a multibillion-dollar fence on the Mexican border — despite Lou Dobbs’s hoax blaming immigrants for a nonexistent rise in leprosy. A new president unburdened by a disastrous war may well fashion the immigration compromise that is likely to elude Mr. Bush.

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.

Vermont's Lone House Rep, Pete Welch, Takes Heat Over His Non-Impeachment Pursuits

Today (the 12th), the newly-elected (he replaced Bernie Sanders who went to the U.S. Senate to replace Jim Jeffords) Peter Welch (Dem), Vermont's only House Rep, took serious heat in a public hearing in Hartford, VT because he will not support impeachment efforts against Bush and/or the entire Bush Administration.

People here are NOT happy about Welch (or Sanders, who has also refused to take up the impeachment gauntlet) and statements like, "Impeachment would get in the way of more important things" (I guess a functioning democracy is a bit too much to ask for anymore) and "Impeachment will just drag out the Iraq War longer" (as if Bush is just racing us out of there as it stands now).

As regular readers know, I am NOT a fan of impeachment. However, there are genuine and very legitimate reasons why the Bush Administration should be removed compared with the whole "blue dress" debacle the GOP perpetrated against Bill Clinton in the latter 1990s.

I continue to feel that the charges to be leveled against the Bushies do not spell impeachment, but treason.

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.

E.J. Dionne: An AntiWar Tide On The Rise

Damn tooting, it's on the rise. And among people who have never protested anything before, let alone an entire (Bush) Administration and a war. We're talking red staters as well as blue, old as well as young, Republicans and Indies as much as Democrats.

But here's what Dionne writes (read the rest here):

Within three weeks, the United States could face a constitutional crisis over President Bush's war policy in Iraq. The president and his allies seem to want this fight. Yet insisting upon a confrontation will be another mistake in a long line of bad judgments about a conflict that grows more unpopular by the day.

Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if the bill stands no chance of passing in the Senate this week in its current form. The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse membership behind a plan pointing the United States out of Iraq.

To understand the importance of the vote, one need only consider what would have been said had it gone the other way: A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented Democratic membership. In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.

The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of war policy. It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted. Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the Iraq issue. Instead, antiwar Democrats, including Web-based groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate colleagues.

Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory. "The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect rallying his own antiwar membership. "Bush is our worst enemy," Matzzie said, "and our best ally."

New Head of CentCom: No Civil War in Iraq

If the rest of this man's information is as wildly flawed as his understanding of what goes on in Iraq, we shouldn't only ask what the new CentCom commander has been smoking. No, we need to truly, truly be concerned about where the military is headed if they only rubber stamp and say yes to whatever Bush tells them to say. From CNN:

Iraq isn't engulfed in a civil war, and there are signs of hope outside strife-torn Baghdad, the new leader of U.S. Central Command says.

But the country needs "more pervasive security" -- as well as a more efficient and responsive government -- before the United States starts withdrawing troops, says Adm. William J. Fallon, whose command is based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, and covers the Middle East, central Asia and eastern Africa.

Fallon, interviewed by CNN's Kyra Phillips, stresses that security in Iraq is clearly the biggest challenge for the nascent government and the U.S.-led coalition.

Fallon says there can be no Iraqi confidence in the new governmental system without strides in keeping the peace. If law and order can't be implemented, he says, "we're not going to be able to get there."

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.

McCain Declares Democrats Don't Care About Troops

[Ed. note: Also noteworthy: McCain claims that - despite all his constantly contradictory statements on almost everything - he has NOT changed. Also, more Americans than ever before disapprove (sounds a little light considering what is said) of the Iraq war and the Bushies' handling of it. See *** below.]

See the story here.

Well, let's see, would I rather be a Democrat seeking to bring the troops home now from a war we were lied into, or would I like to be John McCain who, in light of the lies going into and the failures once we got into Iraq, is willing to risk tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and even more Iraqi civilians JUST to give McCain a boost in the poll numbers.

As I indicated, I can no longer go along with the ridiculous rhetoric about calling McCain a "war hero" just because he was taken prisoner. A true hero would NOT demand more troops lose their lives JUST for his political ambitions. And the Bushies will never let McCain be president anyway.

***Re: Iraq war disapproval:

A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there — potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.

While solutions remain vexing, for the first time ABC News/Washington Post polls show a narrow majority of Americans support setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush's troop surge; most oppose it strongly.

It all makes for a continued hard slog for the president: Just 36 percent approve of his job performance overall, very near his career low of 33 percent last month. Bush hasn't seen majority approval in more than two years — the longest run without majority support for any president since Harry Truman from 1950-53.

While rooted in Iraq, Bush's problems with credibility and confidence reach beyond it. Sixty-three percent of Americans don't trust the administration to convey intelligence reports on potential threats from other countries honestly and accurately. And 58 percent lack confidence, specifically, in its ability to handle current tensions with Iran.

American Majority Supports Timetable for U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

While the White House and the media piss and moan that real Americans disapprove of the Congressional Dems' push to get American troops out of Iraq, this is NOT supported by the findings of a new poll

From Talking Points Memo:

A new poll finds that nearly six in 10 back the House Dem bill mandating withdrawal from Iraq by Fall 2008.

Yet somehow, your media commentators keep reflexively recycling the bogus claim that Congressional Dems are offering voters nothing.

Not cool, Zeus.

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.

My Vermont Town Voted to Impeach Bush - How About Yours?

From the Vermont Guardian (and Woodbury is the town I currently call home, while Calais, Johnson, Montpelier, Morrisville, and Plainfield, to name a few, are places with very good people and where I try to spend my money supporting local non-chain businesses):

If there’s a message from this year’s town meeting, it’s this: Vermonters are upset with Pres. George W. Bush, and less so with school budgets.

Voters in three dozen Vermont towns want Congress to begin an impeachment probe of Pres. George W. Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney. Two towns, Clarendon and Dover, voted the measure down. Nearly a half dozen towns agreed to not take up, or tabled, the resolution.

...Roughly 20 towns passed measures calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and to care for them when they were back on U.S. soil. Dover also rejected the troop measure.

...Newfane Selectman Dan DeWalt is the major organizer of the impeachment resolutions. His effort has drawn global media attention and scorn. Last year, six towns passed impeachment resolutions.

This year, the impeachment resolutions have passed so far in Bristol, Burke, Calais, Craftsbury, Dummerston, East Montpelier, Greensboro, Guilford, Grafton, Hartland, Jamaica, Jericho, Johnson, Marlboro, Middlebury, Montgomery, Morristown, Newbury, Newfane, Peru, Plainfield, Putney, Richmond, Rochester, Roxbury, St. Johnsbury, Springfield, Stannard, Sunderland, Townshend, Tunbridge, Vershire, Warren, Westminster, Wilmington, and Woodbury according to organizers. Organizers based their information on reports from people in each town.

DeWalt said organizers will use these votes to urge state lawmakers to take up a measure in the House calling for Bush’s impeachment. The bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.

“This is clearly not a cry of protest, but the start of action — an impeachment insurrection that will lead to the reclamation of our Constitution,” said DeWalt. “Vermonters are angry and energized. We are taking the power that is sovreign in us and will use it to restore the Constitution. We will show the world that America has not sunk to the depths of violent madness that is the Bush administration.”