AP, Wash. Post reported Bush claim on troop withdrawals but not generals'
SUMMARY: The Washington Post and the Associated Press uncritically reported Bush's statement that "General [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces." But neither noted reports -- including by the AP -- that Petraeus and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will have to decrease next year regardless of success.
In September 3 articles on President Bush's trip to Iraq, The Washington Post and the Associated Press uncritically reported Bush's statement that "General [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces." But neither media outlet noted reports -- including by the AP -- that Petraeus and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will have to decrease next year regardless of success.
In a Post article headlined "In Iraq, Bush Cites Gains: President Suggests Continuation Could Allow Drawdown," staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Ann Scott Tyson reported that Bush "said Monday that continued gains in security in Iraq could allow for a reduction in U.S. troops and called on the Iraqi government to follow up with progress toward rebuilding and political reconciliation." The article quoted Bush's assertion that "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
Similarly, in an AP article headlined "Bush Sees Possible Troop Cuts In Iraq," writers Deb Riechmann and Robert Burns reported that "President Bush raised the possibility Monday of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq if security continues to improve, traveling here secretly to assess the war before a showdown with Congress." The article continued: "Bush did not say how large a troop withdrawal might be possible or whether it might occur before next spring when the first of the additional 30,000 troops he ordered to Iraq this year are to start coming home anyway. He emphasized that any cut would depend upon progress." Riechmann and Burns also noted Bush's statement that Petraeus and Crocker "tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
In a separate speech the same day, Bush said that "when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength":
BUSH: But I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media. (Hooah.) In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. If we let our enemies back us out of Iraq, we will more likely face them in America. If we don't want to hear their footsteps back home, we have to keep them on their heels over here. And that's exactly what you're doing, and America is safer for it.
But while both articles noted Bush's claim that troop levels in Iraq will be reduced only if security can be maintained in the country, the Associated Press reported in an August 15 article that Petraeus stated during an interview: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that." Petraeus continued: "I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now. The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going." From the August 15 AP article:
The general, who wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency, said he and his staff were "trying to do the battlefield geometry right now" as he prepared his troop-level recommendations.
"We know that the surge has to come to an end. There's no question about that. I think everyone understands that by about a year or so from now we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now.
"The question is how do you do that ... so that you can retain the gains we have fought so hard to achieve and so you can keep going. Again we are not at all satisfied where we are right now. We have made some progress but again there's still a lot of hard work to be done against the different extremist elements that do threaten the new Iraq."
In contrast to the Washington Post and AP articles, USA Today reported on September 4 that "Pentagon officials have said they cannot sustain this year's buildup of about 28,000 additional troops past next spring because of the stretched personnel demands on the U.S. military." The Los Angeles Times also reported in an August 24 article that Pace "is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half." The article continued: "Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."
What's at the root of this? The obvious answer is corporately-owned media but that's too easy. The real answer is an overly cautious opposition and an apathetic and ignorant electorate. instead of attacking media 24/7, we should attack apathy, ignorance and yes even the military. No sacred cows. No fear of confrontation and no fear of being called "elite."
I mostly agree with your post.
But how do we fight apathy?
But how do we fight apathy?
I don't care.
HAS THE CONSTITUTION FAILED?
The arch-conservative William F. Buckley said over a year ago that, "If the US had a parlimentary system, George W. Bush would have been removed from office long ago" What Buckley was referring to was the cherry-picked and sometimes out right falsified evidence that led to the Iraqi invasion and the abysmal post war planning.
Couple this with illegal wire-tapping, using the Justice Department for political ends, contracts to cronies, the incompetence of Katrina, torture, ghost prisoners, secret renderings to name just a few crimes and you have a list that would remove any leader from a parlimentary government. Under that system, all you need is a no confidence vote and they are out.
The remedy in the US is impeachment and it is extremely difficult to achieve. Only two presidents have been impeached and both were acquited in the senate. The motivation in these two instances was more political than to do with governance. Incompetants like Buchanan and Hoover lingered in office untill the end of their terms while the nation drifted deeper in crisis.
The crimes and imcompetancies of George W. Bush continue and the US political system is powerless to stop it. As Democratic congressman John Conyers points out, "I look at my calculator and I see we don't have the votes." Perhaps the most liberal member of congress, Senator Bernie Sanders has said, "The impeachment process would consume the agenda and nothing would get done."
So where does that leave us? Having to endure 500 more days of the worst administration in American history? As Keith Overman so brilliantly stated in his commentary of September 4, 2007. "Think of all the people who died in the last 500 days because of President Bush. Think of all that will die in the next 500."
Americans need to remove the aura that shrouds the US Constitution. Let's realize that a document created some 220 years ago may have some out dated aspects. Slavery, the inequality of women and minorities have been removed from it. Let's replace impeachment with a no confidence vote and spare future generations from our folly.
The arch-conservative William F. Buckley said over a year ago that, "If the US had a parlimentary system, George W. Bush would have been removed from office long ago" What Buckley was referring to was the cherry-picked and sometimes out right falsified evidence that led to the Iraqi invasion and the abysmal post war planning.
Congress authorized the war not Bush. The Democrats could have exercised a right to9 recommit, which would have killed the authorization, or filibustered and demanded more investigation. We are at war because Congress sent us there.
Couple this with illegal wire-tapping, using the Justice Department for political ends, contracts to cronies, the incompetence of Katrina, torture, ghost prisoners, secret renderings to name just a few crimes and you have a list that would remove any leader from a parlimentary government. Under that system, all you need is a no confidence vote and they are out.
There is nothing illegal about wire tapping known terrorist. Constitutional protection only applies to U.S. CITIZENS. They don't wan tthere calls tapped stop calling into our country.
Katrina situation was mishandled by a Democrat controlled state and city. In fact the response was more than adequate: [link to www.popularmechanics.com] remedy in the US is impeachment and it is extremely difficult to achieve. Only two presidents have been impeached and both were acquited in the senate. The motivation in these two instances was more political than to do with governance. Incompetants like Buchanan and Hoover lingered in office untill the end of their terms while the nation drifted deeper in crisis.
Just because Bush is a bad communicator does not mean he deserves impeachment. If there were actual reasons to impeach him he would have been impeached.
The crimes and imcompetancies of George W. Bush continue and the US political system is powerless to stop it. As Democratic congressman John Conyers points out, "I look at my calculator and I see we don't have the votes." Perhaps the most liberal member of congress, Senator Bernie Sanders has said, "The impeachment process would consume the agenda and nothing would get done."
Ask yourself this, "If they truly believed it was right, would'nt they at least try?"
So where does that leave us? Having to endure 500 more days of the worst administration in American history? As Keith Overman so brilliantly stated in his commentary of September 4, 2007. "Think of all the people who died in the last 500 days because of President Bush. Think of all that will die in the next 500."
Worst President? How do you figure? The stock markets reached all time highs. Unemployment is at its lowest levels and inflation has been kept in check. The Iraq isn't even the most costliest war in lives and money we have been involved in.
Americans need to remove the aura that shrouds the US Constitution. Let's realize that a document created some 220 years ago may have some out dated aspects. Slavery, the inequality of women and minorities have been removed from it. Let's replace impeachment with a no confidence vote and spare future generations from our folly.
There is a process to add Amendments to the Constitution already. If it were necessary people would do it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html
"Everything's wonderful! Bush is a lying fascist war pig, Cheney evil incarnate, our military is on Crusade and running torture chambers and the stock market is booming! Ain't life grand?"....
Proof some people love fascism.
You make baseless accusations without even the smallest thread of evidence.
If irony were fatal your head would have exploded while typing that post
No it wouldn't. People throw around words like"criminal", "liar", or "warmonger" without offering any evidence other than heresay and conjecture. THere is always a paper trail. Show me the documented evidence of his "crimes".
My point is that your posts are usually about 85% baseless assertions and 15% delusions. I have documented flat out Bush lies so often here they cannot be denied without leaving reality far FAR behind. I digress. Since you post almost nothing BUT baseless assertions calling HIM on them was ironic.
You have repeated what has been said about Bush while offering no documented evidence.
Maybe if all your post weren't laced with insults you might be taken more seriously.
I get tired of doing the same research over and over while the rightwingers deny, run away then come back later and say the same things over and over again. I have listed Bush lies at least a dozen times in this venue alone and never ONCE been refuted by a conservative on them.
On Sept 7. 2002 for instance Bush said "I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access(now this could ONLY have been 98) an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a (nuclear) weapon I dont know what more evidence you need" As David Corn pointed out evidence that actually existed would be nice. No such IAEA report, it didnt exist. Bush pulled it directly out of his ass. The IAEAs actual position at this time as they STATED was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program in 91 and saw NO evidence it had been reconstituted. Now that ISNT a mistake of intelligence, it is NOT a mistinterpretation, he MADE IT UP, it is a LIE pure and simple, if making something up to support your opinion is NOT a lie then there is no such THING as a lie. The Bush administration sent 12 reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes Iraq was buying could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges, what they left OUT of the report was that we had captured some and given them to be studied by OUR experts on gas centrifuges and they UNANIMOUSLY denied they were likely to be used that way at ALL much less could ONLY be used that way. Condalizzard Rice went on TV and said the anodyzed coating PROVED they were for GCs an outright LIE as the anodyzed coating reacts badly to uranium and would have to be removed. Three of the scientists ridiculed the very IDEA they would be used for GCs. Now that is LYING. I could list more but these two off the top of my head make the point. I didnt do any insulting in the post you responded to. If you dont realize that most of your posts are made up primarily of baseless assertions that isnt my fault but it is NOT an insult to point out that it is so.
You're just upset because he stole your patented "baseless accusations" line which you always use when you don't like what someone has to say. You constantly slam posters for their posts, when yours aren't exactly thrilling and full of intellect.
It really isnt my fault that morons like you listen to too much RushWeinerdogHannity clones and think THAT is the way to argue. That debate consists of just SAYING what you WISH were true and hope it magically will become true. Assuming facts not in evidence is a classic logical fallacy and I cannot be faulted that you rightwingers make it a staple of your postings. I have no choice but to point out ENDLESSLY that it is ALL YOU EVER HAVE. You can keep posting your delusions till your fingers fall off it wont make them true. Sorry if it cramps your style that I keep pointing that out.
You don't need to feel sorry for me or apologize. I do find it humorous that you cleverly call people out by letting us all know they are "morons" or "stupid" or "idiotic". You display an intelligence I will never have (and I'm sure I don't want to have it). Anyone can call anyone a moron all day, or you can civilly engage with someone. Your excuse that you're tired of all these rightwing idiots putting up posts that you don't like is a bad one. If you don't like it, engage with them and enlighten them. I would have figured a smart guy like yourself would have known this. Or are conservatives beyond help, in which case why are you endlessly arguing and debating with them?
You make a valid criticism overall. It is certainly an excercise in futility to just make ad hominem attacks. THAT is the point. Did you somehow think your post to me was something ELSE? Because I didnt. I DO engage in reasoned debate and logical give and take when THAT is what is being done. I didnt see any in YOUR post to me however and thought returning serve was all it required. If you dont like mud thrown at you dont throw mud. As to conservatives I am not tired of them. I cut my teeth on principled conservatives and respect their points of view even when I disagree. That doesnt mean I will suffer the slings and arrows of personal attacks by them without responding in kind. Perhaps you think that is a poor excuse, perhaps it is, it is however my way and I will continue on it. Talk to me about issues, and make points and I will not return personal insults as responses. ATTACK me personally as your post clearly did and I will it really is just that simple
"Wow another pointless, inane, and barely coherent post by Tweaker, what a shock."
"Try this experiment. Make a COGENT ARGUMENT, rather than stubborn restatements of your original premise and see if it works."
"Hey, you worship the insane Weinerdog. You DEFINE ignorance."
"Fine that is your opinion. Here is mine. YOU are wrong. I find you terribly intolerant, my advice is to get a life."
"Oh yeah, and YOU are a moron. I know its not breaking news but there it is."
"Your post is typical rightwing stupidity. Never able to see what is actually there."
- All post by Solon
If you were debating the issues and engaging with people, then I wouldn't have said anything. I can disagree with people, and even get a little heated at times, but you seem to resort to name-calling and 5th grade debating often. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then maybe you could treat them like human being instead of ripping them everytime you think they say something that is "stupid" or something that makes them out to be a "moron" in your mind. It's just difficult to take you seriously when all you can do is insult people. You say you want to discuss issues, but so many negative posts make you less credible in my mind. I know you will insult me because of this. That's fine, but you will only prove me right.
Your post was an amazing study in delusion and outright fantasy.
BUSH took us to war. Can you even SAY with a straight face that if HE had not been pushing it we would be in Iraq? Congress went ALONG to their shame but to say Congress took us to war is tipping over into DEMENTIA in your Bush idolotry and its compulsion to protect the silly moron from ANY valid criticizms.
The statement that the Constitution protects only citizens is flat out wrong you have been corrected on this before. Except for voting rights the Constitution doesnt use the word citizen about its rights it says PERSONS. Anyone living here legally has the protection of the Constitution. Your frame saying wiretapping known terrorists is completely inane and worthless propaganda. Since there are no WARRANTS therefore NO OVERSIGHT. You have no idea WHO is being wiretapped however IF it had only been known terrorists then exactly WHAT would the problem have been getting warrants only the most utterly brainwashed sychophant could even regurgitate such nonsense.
Katrina was botched by this ReNAMBLAcan president and FEMA, while there is plenty of blame to go around a disaster of this magnitude takes the resources only the Federal government can muster and when there was a Tsunami in Indonesia we were dropping food and water THERE in 48 hrs but FIVE DAYS after the flooding we still werent at the Superdome.
There are DEFINITLY reasons to impeach. The warrantless wiretapping was one of the articles of impeachment for Nixon. LYING to take us to war as Bush has done sending false or at the very least misleading studies to Congress like he did 12 times about the aluminum tubes is against the law. It is known as perpetrating a fraud on America. Two of the watergate felons were charged with exactly this crime. If you mislead Congress in a way that inhibits their ability to carry out their function properly it is a fraud. Bush could go down for that tommorrow. The REASONS he is not being impeached are political NOT legal. Bush is EASILY among the worst presidents EVER. The stock market may be high but the median income is stagnant. The economy is GREAT if you own an oil company but if you are a working man your wages have been stagnant IF you were fortunate enough not to lose your job and your new one pays half what your old one did. While your heating bills food, and gas prices have gone through the roof. As usual you regurgitate the talking points with the best of them but if you BELIEVE them for one second you are just plain delusional
Sonon, i agree with all of your statements but one. "when there was a Tsunami in Indonesia we were dropping food and water THERE in 48 hrs but FIVE DAYS after the flooding we still werent at the Superdome."
I am in the Louisiana National Guard and we were at the Superdome the entire time, feeding the evacuees twice a day. We ran low on food and water a few times but we never ran out. These were supplies that the state of Louisiana had set aside and stockpiled farther north for such emergencies.
Thank you for that correction. I was unclear apparantly in my statement. What I meant was any disaster of that magnitude would overwhelm local resources and while FEMA and the Federal governments resources were dropping food and water in 48 hrs in Indonesia it took THEM five days to get to the Superdome. While I think there is plenty of blame to go around I have nothing but the highest regard for how the National Guard in Louisiana did their job under really difficult circumstances. FEMA worked pretty well in Florida during Clinton and the wheels fell off under Bush. That was the point I was trying to make.
1. Bush did not put boots on the ground until he had authorization to do so from Congress. Had he never gotten that authorization we would not be thee because then all he would have been able to do was 90 day deployment. I am not saying he is blameless I am saying Congress is just as responsible.
2. Just because there is no warrant does not mean there is no oversight. Members of Congress are still briefed on it and provide oversight.
3. Did you even read the Popular Mechanics article? FEMA has always said after a major disaster you are on your own for up 5 days. People chose not to leave, it is tragic, but the federal government did their job.
4. Every intelligence agency in the World said Saddam Hussein was developing WMD and trying to acquire nuclear weapons the disagreement was how to deal with it. If there were reasons to impeach they would have already been submitted. The economy is doing fine. People expect more so it fuels a perception of the economy being bad. Our poorest person is consider well off in some nations.
Again you NEVER know what you are talking about. Remember your earlier post about baseless assertions? Is it TRUE that every intelligence agency in the world said Iraq was trying to develop Nuclear weapons just because YOU say so?
1 Fine, THAT is a reasonable assertion but NOT the one you made which was that we are in Iraq because of Congess. THAT is flat out delusional. Without Bush pushing it we would NOT be in Iraq period. This is self evident.
2. Delusion. Congress provides NO oversight they are briefed that there IS a program. Do they have a list of WHO is wiretapped and why? NO they dont. That isnt oversight. Get a grip.
3 FEMA failed. There is plenty of blame to go around. Want to blame Nagin the governor. No complaints from here but to accept your statement that FEMA did a fine job is ludicrous.
4. Delusional. No every intelligence agency in the world did NOT believe Iraq was trying to produce WMDs OR nuclear weapons that is flat out propaganda and a lie.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
The British intelligence source said the best Humint(human intelligence from agents) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -
The IAEA said they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program in 91 and saw NO evidence of them reconstituting it. I dont know where you get this propaganda devoid of facts or even reality but you are flat out wrong more often than not.
1. The end result is the same. Without Congress there would be no war.
2.Yes they do. And if they are not they can demand it. Plus they do not need to get warrants at the time but they still have to go before a judge after an justify it.
3. They did exactly what was said they would. They said in the case of major you are own for five days. When I lived in California I had an Earthquake survival kit good for five days.
4.You have the delusion all the French stuff came out after the war started as a way to backtrack when they got their hands caught in the cookie jar of the oil for food scandal.
5.There are still numerous reports from Iraqi Generals and support staff that as we were coming into the south massive shipments were into Syria in the north. The WMD would be the logical choice of what got secretly shipped out of country.
Stale long debunked talking points baseless assertions and insane delusions
1 Fine if THAT was what you said but you blamed it all on Congress saying it was Congress that took us to war. Flat out delusion. Without Bush NO WAR so it CANNOT be blamed on Congress even the attempt to do so is ludicrous on the face of it. They deserve some of the blame but MOST of it is Bush's baby.
2 You again dont know what you are talking about there are NO warrants involved period. You are apparantly mixing up FISA with the administrations program. IF they were still getting warrants after the fact IF a judge was seeing who was being wiretapped there would be no reason for a new program that IS the FISA law.
3 Keep telling yourself FEMA did a good job. You, Brownie and about 10 delusional rightwingers are the only people alive who believe it here is an article virtually at random that disputes this
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAN20050910&articleId=917
4 Flat out delusional the story was about what the French were saying BEFORE the war. This is why France Germany and Russia were all reluctant to help us. Even our OWN state dept intelligence was disputing the nuclear claims and said DIRECTLY that they had no hard evidence of stockpiles of weapons in Iraq which was widely reported from the 2002 NIE. The IAEA had been saying all ALONG they didnt believe there was any evidence of Iraq reconstituting their nuclear program and THEY had been monitering it.
5 No, a couple of guys with zero credibility are making that claim there is ZERO evidence that the a-dog-ate-my-WMD defense is anothing other than butt covering. Why would Syria take them? Do THEY want to be next on the invasion list? How would the tons and tons of weapons Bush told us about be brought to Syria without us seeing it with our satellite and constant overflight surveillance. Its fantasy. May as well say the fairies took them or they were whisked away to Mars we have just as much evidence that is true. Kay and Duelfer didnt SAY they couldnt find the WMDs and they might have gone to the North Pole they said there had BEEN NONE SINCE AT LEAST 1995. Again you regurgitate the rightwing talking points but they are without merit.
Actually, ths is another of those lame MMFA "topics" that criticizes a single article for not making the left's complete case. The fact is that the AP on the very next day had another article:
-------------------------------------------
Bush Defends Iraq BuildupBy TOM RAUM
The Associated Press Wednesday, September 5, 2007; 12:08 AM
... Bush's troop increase will end by default in April or May, when one of the added brigades is slated to leave, unless Bush makes other changes to hold the number steady..
--------------------------------------------------
Give the AP a break - they are trying to make the lib/left case as best as they can - I mean, having to wait 24 hours to get you point in the liberal media is hardly anything worth crying about.
No its just another LAME attempt at deflection by YOU, a committed propagandist. What another LATER article does or says is irrelevant to the balance of the articles being talked about. Try to keep up.
So, apparently you want every aspect of every side of every topic in every country on every issue to be reported on in every edition of every news piece ever written or aired?? Seems simple enough.
Do you have a point? Are you saying a completely one sided article is ok? That it is fine to leave out relevant information TO an article? Do you have any IDEA what journalism is? That information was relevant to THAT article and was left out the article was NOT balanced and thus fair game for criticism.
No what he is saying is that if the story is about Bush sucking on a lollipop we don't need to know how he obtained the lollipop because that isn't the story.
That is just stupid. The story was ABOUT troop withdrawls what the Generals have to say about troop withdrawls are OBVIOUSLY relevant. ONLY a Bush idolotry determination to protect President Gump could possibly motivate anyone to say differently.
Do you think Bush is giving us updates on information only the generals would know without first consulting them? Or are you in the school that assumes Bush is all about lying to us every single moment of every single day and doesn't give a damn about this country and its citizens? If so, you're as dilusional as the far right that you claim are such idiots and stupid (you love those words, right?). I'm saying that whenever there is something you don't agree with, you call them out because if you don't think it's truth, then you will scream "unfair" and "bias". Give it a rest. You are deranged to think that all republicans, including Bush, are lying idiots who only want to hurt this country and gain more power.
Your post is ludicrous. The generals have said this PUBLICLY. Bush IS a lying idiot, that is obvious. I never said however he wants to hurt the country. There is clear bias here. So why dont you give your SNIVELLING that MMFA is exposing it a rest. This story was about troop withdrawls what the Generals have said about them is obviously relevant. Get over it.
What did the generals say publicly?
How did republicans demonize "liberal." We begin by defining apathy so its part of the common vernacular. This has to start early. We then ridicule and demean apathy. The system in its current state encourages apathy -- i.e., voter suppression. We'll require leadership to accomplish this ala RFK. There are people among the democratic roster capable of accomplishing this. I'll let you decide who they are.
The only people in the Democrat Party willing to stop the madness are marginalized by their own party in the name of Israel Lobby and corporate donations. So we can't expect any salvation from that quarter. We're on our own here.
No fear of a continuing culture, becoming an elite, if your sucessful, entirely possible. Anarchistic, fear gone, but turned into anger. How do you come off that anger and blend back into the crowd for the rest of your life?
Your first answer maybe to easy, but is essentially correct. More correct to just say the directors of those corporations. If you want more details you could examine the influence as it touches the people inbetween the the directors and the media of your choice. Enablers can be another load of information. Third the connections between the first two and the Reprobate Party.
Possible ways to reduce the infleunce of these feckless marplots include: public financing, breaking up the larger media empires, Dems sucessfully campainging by not avoiding possibly controversial areas.
A phrase I ran accross in D. Westen's "the Political Brain" that should be part of the debate is mutual altruism. A sucessful strategy for many speceis, including ours.
EWeston, Excellent comments and potential solutions. Thank you for giving me some things to think about.
Yes, apathy is lethal as the saying goes.
We have to keep the truth about this invasion of Iraq in the public eye as much as possible. Lots of groups go out every week with signs. Everyday conversations...posting on sites like this one, contacting congress, etc. Just as a small group pushed for this occupation, a larger group of committed people can wake up more citizens. Here's a good article about the "surge."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/090407.html
"When members of Congress – or pundits and journalists, for that matter – are taken on tightly controlled visits to a war zone like Iraq, they undergo what the late Michigan Gov. George Romney famously referred to as “brainwashing.”
Whatever, Georgie.
Draw down.
Don't say withdraw; that would make you a cut and run Republican. Saying withdraw would mean Democrats have been right, which is bad politically for Republicans because if you acknowledge Dems are right that would make Republicans invested in defeat, it would make a vote for a Republican a vote for the terrorists.
Who does he think he is? "I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels." Screw you, George. It is not your decision, Congress is the decider and you have willfully disobeyed their Constitutional authority to define the mission.
Congress is not in charge of the Armned Forces. Their role is in authorizing or de-authorizing war and in funding. Congress could end the war tomorrow and bring our troops home by refusing to fund it.
Except that Georgie will veto any bill that doesn't make him happy and can Congress refuse to fund the occupation of Iraq without a veto proof majority?
Anyway, Congress sets the mission the President makes sure the needs of the Armed forces are met.
Then and only then would could you truly blame only George Bush for our continued involvement in this war. Congresses role in war is this:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
It says nothing about their being able to set the mission of that war. If they truly did not want us there we would no longer be there.
And not having enough votes to override a veto is not an excuse to not try. Congress needs to accept their responsibility for this situation, George Bush should not be the only one holding the bag on this.
The Constitution provides Congress with the power to define the military agenda, including troop re-deployment and the establishment of timetables.
The role of the president is to carry out the agenda defined by Congress.
Really, where in the Constitution does it give this authority. I was just looking at it and saw nothing under the section that defines the role of Congress.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
We need to get rid of that "training the militia" part. They do a poor job of organizing our National Guards. They do not plan with the needs of the state in mind. Pennsylvania has a squadron of C-130's but we can't use them for transport, the Pentagon demands we carry a flying radio station in them. Can't use them to help in floods or any other internal disaster. Thanks for caring, Washington DC.
In no where in that does it once the allow the use of the military that they get to set the mission.
Also they are talking about militias (national guard) not regular Armed Forces.
Well, who comprises the bulk of the forces in Iraq? Regular army or Guardsmen?
Besides, Mr. Strict Constructionist, what actual authority to set the military agenda does the Constitution give to the Executive Branch?
It gives every authority by labeling the President Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
So, you believe that in war, the seperation of power is dissolved? That the Exeutive has sole authority to determine the military agenda?
I'm glad you stated the Commander in Chief label because it made me re-evaluate my argument.
The power of the purse, which congress controls is held out to them for "increases in the size, scope or duration of a conflict which themselves necessarily require new expenditures, these same powers also enable Congress to take the more modest step of barring the use of appropriations to maintain or increase the forces that may be committed to a war, even if it is not finally terminated. In this way the Congress has the authority to set the military agenda."
[link to judiciary.senate.gov]
The Supreme Court agrees. Chief Justice Marshall said as much. "[t]he whole powers of war [are], by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress ...."
Just face up to it, the Bush Republicans have defied the Constitution, the Congress, the people and common decency.
I will agree that Congress needs to show some spine and put this worst of Presidents in his place. I will not agree that this congress is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, that would be the responsibility of the Republican majority 109th Congress and the handful of Dems who have not owned up to their mistake.
First, that entire section is in reference to militia or national guard.
Second, no where in there does it once they authorize their use they get to set the mission and dictate to the Commander in Chief what he may or may not do.
The stories were about his trip to Iraq and his experience there not what the General's said in other media. The General's comments were recorded in stories about the General's comments. They don't have to report on every single aspect and angle of a story every time they report something.
Bush should be removed from office becauise of deriliction of duty. He committed U.S. troops to fight in one of the most volatile regions of the world with the goal of removing the leader without a comprehensive, realistic plan. The complexity of this area was well known. The Bush Administration is so tainted, its effectiveness and ability to conduct diplomacy is limited, which leaves the U.S. unable to use all tools to deal with the issues involving Iraq. So, our men/women continue to die while the lame duck remains in office.
First, we are using diplomacy in Iraq. The only battle where diplomacy is not an option is the War on Terror and that is not for lack of trying.
Second, Bush cannot be held to dereliction of duty since he is not subject to the UCMJ.
Bush can be held accountable to the Geneva Conventions, the US Code, and the Nuremburg Charter. All of which are US law. All of which would CONVICT him. But then Bush claims he's above the law...like a dictator. You sure back the real winners there, jack.
There has been no violation of the Geneva Convention.
U.S. Law only protects CITIZENS of this country. He has done nothing to the citizens of this country that would be a violation of that law.
You NEVER know what you are talking about the law of our land apply to PERSONS not citizens you need to stop repeating this completely WRONG canard whatever screechmonkey put it into your HEAD it is WRONG. Bush HAS violated the rights of citizens when he put Jose Padilla in jail for three years without access to a lawyer and said he would NOT be brought to trial. The Sixth amendment says we have a right to a speedy trial, no possible reading of that could entail three years in solitary confinement. There is also no possible way to even CLAIM we have not violated the Geneva convention. Abu Ghraib was a clear violation as was GITMO the GC says if there is a dispute as to whether someone is covered by the GC a competent tribunal will make that decision Bush flat out denied that avenue a clear violation. Your entire post was completely wrong. You NEVE know what you are talking about.
Actually I do. The Geneva Convention only protects soldiers of an organized fighting force. They lay out exactly what qualifies them as a soldier and then the protection guaranteed them. There is no debate the terrorist in the GITMO are not covered by the Geneva convention.
Unless you are prepared to say that someone living in China has protection under our Constitution then it is only for citizens.
Jose Padilla is an isolated case. Should the government be held to task, probably. Should this one incident make the whole system crumble, no.
How then are we at war? And how then is Georgie maintaining his war powers?
No organized fighting force means no army to fight which means no war objective.
We are an occupying force in Iraq.
We can still be war without the enemy being organized. It is ludicrous to think that because the enemy chooses not to be organized that we cannot be at war with them.
What's ludicrous is war against no organized army, no territory to seize, no resources to capture, no government to topple. That is the definition of war without end.
War is over, the U.S. won easily. Saddam was deposed and summarily executed, the Iraqi's elected a government and most importantly Bush declared victory. So what do we have now?
It's an occupation of a foreign land, one in which terrorist criminals have amassed to perpetrate crimes against humanity.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about. The GC says directly that no one is beyond protection they lay out criteria then talk about exceptions and then say no one is beyond protection and of course there is a debate as to whether those at Gitmo are covered. MOST of them werent captured on the battlefield they were handed over by mercenaries we PAID to get them and those that were there is a specific exception in the GC for fighting foriegn invaders where there isnt time or an organized army to fight against it. Check the GC out for yourself I am tired of looking this up and posting it every time you guys make the same tired WRONG argument.
Your argument about China is dumb. The constitution doesnt travel it covers those who are subject to OUR laws. Those in other countries are not bound by our laws however there is NO QUESTION you are flat out wrong saying only citizens are protected by the Constitution I have my copy right here it doesnt say CITIZENS in most places it says PERSONS you are just plain wrong.
As for Jose, that is the thing about rights either everyone has them or no one does. We have only those rights you can defend ONLY THOSE RIGHTS. They werent defended for Jose so what is my expectation they will be defended when it is MY turn. Anyway you said he didnt violate ANY citizens rights that is plain wrong.
I have read through the GC and it clearly states the standards by which you are protected. If you are not part of a regular army/fighting force you are not covered.
I have no doubt you have read them apparantly you didnt understand the. Once again you show you NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm
The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, but under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.1
The U.S. position is inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions on several counts. First, the U.S. may not classify as a group all detainees from the Afghan conflict as not being entitled to POW status; such a determination must be made on an individual basis by a competent tribunal. Second, there is a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless determined otherwise. Third, it is incorrect to assert that only POWs are protected by the Geneva Conventions-all persons apprehended in the context of an international armed conflict, including the types of prisoners the U.S. has labeled as "unlawful combatants," receive some level of protection under the Geneva Conventions.
Give it up you are just flat out wrong again.
The Constitution does have to say Citizen. No none citizen has any rights under that document. If you are in our country you have protection of our laws by not constitutional protection.
You are completly and utterly WRONG. The bill of rights NEVER says citizens it says PERSONS. So they are all covered by it. You just keep SAYING over and over the constitution only protects citizens as if when you reach that magic number of repititions it will become true. IT IS FLAT OUT WRONG. There are some rights that apply only to citizens but to say the constitution protects ONLY non citizens cannot withstand one seconds scrutiny. In this context we are talking about the law and constituional rights under the law. There flat out isnt any question the fourth fifth and sixth amendment applies to both citizens and non citizens who are under the jurisdiction of our law. ALL of those amendments say PERSONS they do not say CITIZENS.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied BUSH WOULD BE HUNG.
For what? He did nothing but keep America's promise and remove a ruthless dictator and give an oppressed people democracy and choice in their daily lives.
Do you KNOW what most of the Nazis were hung for? Starting a war of aggression. There was NO self defense motive to invade Iraq, even Richard Perle admitted it violated international law. That makes it a war of agression. Your take on why we invaded Iraq is cute but it isnt the reason Bush GAVE. He was telling us it was about disarming Iraq and all those WMDs that littered Iraq like so many cigarette butts. The ones that didnt exist. I understand how useful it is for you to pretend the shiny new rationale, the only one left is the real reason but I have an actual functioning cerebral cortex and I REMEMBER the run up to the Iraq war. Even YOUR rationale is ludicrous. Saddam was at his WORST when he was our good ally. We didnt care what a brutal dictator he was THEN but NOW it is a reason to invade? Stop trying to convince me that we invaded Iraq because President Gump suddenly found compassion for the poor suffereing Iraqi people, it makes my stomach hurt. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from his first day in office and they were cutting up the oil fields months BEFORE 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”
Read the authorization to use force in Iraq it talks about more than WMD:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Also our President gave his word after the first Gulf War that the U.S. would help if the people of Iraq rose up against Saddam. They did, we didn't, and they got slaughtered. What is wrong with America keeping it's word?
Are you SERIOUSLY asserting that because Bush the smarter in 91 said that we would help them, and I agree it was a betrayal to sit and watch them die, that after they were slaughtered and TWELVE YEARS LATER we were just keeping our word to HELP THEM? Please tell me this is a joke and you arent taking that seriously. As for the IWR they listed a lot of things but if you are seriously claiming at this date the WMDs were not the sine qua non of the invasion then you werent paying attention at the time. When you make a case you throw everything in but it is an insult to the intelligence of ANYONE paying attention at the time to pretend this invasion was NOT about WMDs.