Sorry There Shays... You and your GOP broke Iraq, you bought it.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) claimed that “the Democrats may not want to own Iraq but they own it now as much as this President.”
The GOP controlled House and Senate, and the bush White House, wanted Iraq. And even though the Democratic party won't take over until January sessions the irresponsible republican children are already trying to pawn blame off on Democratic members for past GOP mistakes.
Go sit in your partisan corner with your pet Lieberman and STFU.
"'A congressional mandate to begin a withdrawal from Iraq in a time certain would be a disaster for the Iraqis and, more directly, for the U.S.,' Lieberman said.
But even Lieberman was looking for an endpoint. At the hearing, he told Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, that he hoped the general would 'not hesitate' to ask Bush for a troop increase if necessary.
'It may be that a short-term increase in our forces there, embedded with [Iraqi troops], will be the best way for us to more quickly get to a point where we can actually draw down our forces,' Lieberman said.
His comments illustrated a key difference between pre- and post-election rhetoric: Lawmakers of all stripes understand things are not going well and are clearly searching for some way out. "
Just to be clear on this: Joe Lieberman is full of shit, and so is McCain. Sending more troops will only make more targets for the insurgents AND send all of the wrong messages to the Iraq government and people.
It is the epitome of playing politics with soldiers lives when they put forth "ideas" that are nothing more than GOP talking points designed to deflect the medias' attention from the the American voters desire to get out of Iraq.
You really want more soldiers in Iraq Joe?
If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the fucking walk: US Army recruiting. You, Joe "chickenbawk" Lieberman, sign up and put your partisan ass on the line if you really believe the BS you are spouting.
Did anyone catch Joe Lieberman thinking about sending more troops to Iraq on Meet the Press when he was on with McCain?
McCain and Lieberman Express Support For Sending More Troops to Iraq: "McCAIN: The question is, is what’s the solution? And I believe that a withdrawal or a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region, and most military expercent think the same thing. I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.
+++
RUSSERT: Should we send more troops?
LIEBERMAN: I think we have to be open to that as a way to succeed, to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment."
What do the Generals say about the Lieberman and McCain idea?
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
The best way to stop the political greed spurred on by the industrial-military machine that funds it is to put their kids necks on the line too.
Does anyone think Bush would have chosen to invade Iraq without an honest reason if his twit-twins would have had to be drafted?
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.
A quick look at what these secret plans are?
Plan 1:
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
"Go Big" is really a misnomer for this plan... How's this sound:
Go Draft!
Rep. Charles Rangel is busy trying to ensure that this plan is ready to consume the political and business classes' kids if they opt for Go Draft.
OK... How's about Plan 2?
Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security.” McCain suggests enlarging the force to send them to Iraq, an idea that is implausible to carry out over the short-term and would damage the military’s ability to recruit over the long-term.
2) The insurgency would grow more inflamed. “A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis.” The recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad has only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position — now six in ten — a number sure to increase if more U.S. troops are put on the ground.
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Sounds suspiciously like what the American voters expected when they voted the GOP out of power in the House and the Senate? Besides... Iraq has been in a CIVIL WAR for a long time. The fact that the Bush appointed leaders still in place refuse to recognize this truth amplifies the reasoning for complete withdrawal. Our soldiers should not have to be subjected to the abuse of these GOP incompetents any longer:
Redeploy!
Phased withdrawal is gaining consensus as the last best option for Iraq. A growing group of experts — including the Iraq Study Group and host of conservative senators — are consolidating behind a redeployment. 63 percent of Americans believe Congress should set a timetable.
--- Think Progress
Makes sense to me. Why not let Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin know which secret plan you support? Don't forget to contact your own Representative and Senator to let them know where you stand and what you, the voter, expect from them as well.
I hate GOP talking points. They are dishonest. The MSM repeats them unquestioningly and unchallenged, and it hurts any chances of bipartisan politics when the MSM is highly partisan in its coverage.
Here is a beuty picked up early on by "The Aristocrats Blog" that has slipped under most people's radar...
Bush: "The final push" - "A last big push"
Dems: "Benchmarks"
Which one of those messages sends a definitive amount of time that the insurgents has to wait out our forces before they return chaos to the streets of Iraq? Benchmarks are flexible, FINAL and LAST are pretty definitive. Are the Dems telegraphing a message to the insurgents of how long they have to wait us out OR is the Bush admin. doing that? What does the media say?
Bullshit like the MSM repeating GOP talking points like this unchallenged, all the while picking apart the Dems POV, has got to stop.
HELENA, Mont. - A Montana state senator has officially changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, breaking a tie to give his new party a 26-24 advantage.
snip
Democrats have a 50-49 edge in the Montana House. One Democrat, Sheila Hogan, lost by just 24 votes and party officials said this past week that she will ask for a recount; if she were to win, the Democrats' lead would change to 51-48.
You can bet there will be more of this in the future. Moderate Republicans have to be wondering how they let radicals take over the GOP. heh
In its supposed efforts to push for bipartisan ideas to be discussed the media needs to become more honest in its reporting efforts if truely bipatrtisan political efforts are to ever succeed.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the Middle East, warned against any radical change, telling the committee that any decrease would lead to increased violence and instability and an increase would impose too great a strain on U.S. force levels. Sen. John McCain thinks the immediate situation calls for more troops, not fewer.
I've already discussed the problems with McCain's unrealistic suggestion of adding more troops. It just can't be done:
Even The Military Question The GOP's Failed Tactics
The Iraqi government's refusal to take certain measures to reduce sectarian tensions between Sunni Arabs and the nation's Shiite Muslim majority has led these officers to conclude that Iraqis will not make difficult decisions unless they are pushed.
Therefore, they say, the advantages of deadlines may outweigh the drawbacks.
"Deadlines could help ensure that the Iraqi leaders recognize the imperative of coming to grips with the tough decisions they've got to make for there to be progress in the political arena," said a senior Army officer who has served in Iraq.
...snip...
Former Pentagon official Kurt Campbell said more officers are calling for deadlines after concluding that the indefinite presence of U.S. forces enables the Shiite-run Iraqi government to avoid making compromises.
"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, a Washington-based unit charged with overseeing training of all Iraqi police in western Baghdad. "To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure we're ever going to have police here that are free of the militia influence."
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., predicted last week that Iraqi security forces would be able to take control of the country in 12 to 18 months. But several days spent with American units training the Iraqi police illustrated why those soldiers on the ground believe it may take decades longer than Casey's assessment.
Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias,
The soldiers keep getting told that as the Iraqis stand up, the American military will stand down. But this is a failing policy. The soldiers on the ground know that it will be decades before Iraqis will be able to protect themselves. Something that Bush administration has shown no signs of understanding. As long as we are there the Iraqis have no incentive to stand up and, to make matters worse, we are further aggravating the situations between the different groups fighting for control within Iraq. And in doing that we are forcing our soldiers to work alongside many Iraqis that are part of the problem.
American soldiers said that although they gather evidence of police ties to the militias and present it to Iraqi officials, no one has ever been criminally charged or even lost their jobs.
The soldiers are doing the best they can in a worst case scenario, but the reality is that the Iraqi government is just as effective as the Bush administration has repeatedly shown itself to be when it is faced with complicated problems.
They do nothing.
Some of the idiots in the right-wing-cheerleader-camp of the GOP are echoing a simplistic answer that is too little, too late, when they advocate that we should just send more troops to quell the CHAOS in Iraq but where are these soldiers going to come from anyways?
The U.S. military suffers from a glaring manpower deficiency. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that in operations such as counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stabilization, and peacekeeping, even the United States' impressive technology cannot substitute for soldiers.
...snip...
The Bush administration, however, does not share this assessment, as evidenced by its handling of the invasion of Iraq. Before the war, Rumsfeld was dismissive, even contemptuous, of warnings from senior U.S. military officials, such as former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, that securing Iraq would require a vast number of boots on the ground.
...snip...
Despite this obvious manpower shortage, the Bush administration remains committed to Rumsfeld's military-transformation agenda. Neither the president's budget for 2007 nor the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review calls for expanding the number of U.S. troops.
In other words:
The Bush administration does nothing.
They "Stay the course!" that Rumsfeld's failing plan has laid out for them and try to ignore the real problems.
Unless McCain and the rest of the GOP that back his plan are advocating reinstating the draft when McCain calls for "another 20,000 troops in Iraq" then they really offer no real solution at all.
The soldiers aren't there to do it without a draft. The fact that it can't be done without a draft does not address the question of whether or not it should be done.
This is where the Connecticut Post is guilty of ignoring the facts in their biased editorial. They take a small part of General Abizaid's statement to refute the Democratic parties election platform to redeploy, but ignore where General Abizaid smacksdown McCains proposal:
Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’” Watch it:
McCain has repeatedlysaid that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
McCain makes a good point with his "whackamole" comment, but clearly the only other thing that McCain is correct in when he talks about sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq is at the end of the video where he says, "I don't know where the troops are going to come from."
He hasn't a clue that it would take a draft to get enough troops. Firstly, because we already don't have the troops to spare. And, secondly, because you need to be looking at the several hundred thousand pairs of boots on the ground deemed neccessary by General Shinseki, before he was chased out of the military by the neocons for being honest, if you really want to secure Iraq and you get the idea of how wrong McCain is.
“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]
McCain’s misguided call for more troops would only make things worse in Iraq, is unrealistic given the fact that we don't have the 20,000 troops to spare, and would not be enough soldiers to be effective anyways.
And this is what the Connecticut Post suggests?
The new situation has forced the Democrats to take a more realistic view of the problem, and many have moved away from the view of Rep. John Murtha to pull out troops quickly.
I believe that the Connecticut Post needs to review its opinion on whom is really in need of taking a more relistic view:
Phased withdrawal is gaining consensus as the last best option for Iraq. A growing group of experts — including the Iraq Study Group and host of conservative senators — are consolidating behind a redeployment. 63 percent of Americans believe Congress should set a timetable.
I also think that with bipartisan efforts being talked about so much in the political arena, and even being exhibited by some at almost every level on Capitol Hill (except from the White House), maybe the media should start taking a hard look at its own partisan reporting and agendas.
Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Glen Beck, can I have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table? I am not nervous to say this to you, because what I feel like saying is, "Shitbag, prove to me that you are not a racist xenophobe."
And I know I've just implied that you are even if I didn't actually say it. I'm not accusing you of being a racist xenophobe, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck previously warned that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West" and declared that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head" will face dire consequences.
Nevermind Glen. You don't need to prove anything to me. I guess I'll just let your own words speak about your character. Though I do find it interesting that many people that advocate hate tend to advocate violence as a solution to their hate.
A whole mixed bag of stuff in here that might be of interest to everyone:
Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.
“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”
The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:
Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions
“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.
About the only thing that doesn't make some sense is the review of the MCA... Better to just repeal it and start over making laws that might be Constitutional and not such a tyranical slap in the face of the freedoms this country was built upon.
Fred Lucas of the Danbury News Times is trying to rope readers into believeing that there is a "sore-loser law" on the way. Apparently it just isn't true:
Considering the Abrahmoff scandal and the documented evidence of free meals he was giving to Republican power brokers at his "Signatures" restaurant, don't you think your GOP talking point is beyond being a bit hypocritical?
Serious and honest reporters offer pieces that are objective, balanced and factchecked. Not talking points tailored to their own personal political views.
I think the News Times Live is practicing irresponsible Journalism ethics in allowing your continued dissembling of GOP talking points under the banner of "Connecticut Politics." If they wanted to be honest they would call your Blog "The GOP Failed POV". And I am not the only one that is noticing your one sided reporting.
This sore-loser proposal is a no-brainer and makes sense. Why have a primary if you can just ignore the results of your party and run as a independent? The primary battle between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman ultimately was a great waste of money and time for the party as a whole as Lieberman used a loophole to his advantage. If Lierberman would have just ran as an independent in the first place, the Democratic Party could have saved a great deal of money but instead, Lieberman used the party to his advantage (money, GOTV), only to dismiss the results of the primary and run as an independent.
ctblogger is correct. Money wasted and time wasted were keys to Lieberman's election win. If Lieberman had dropped his already failing primary bid earlier on it would have allowed the entire Connecticut wing of the Democratic party to concentrate more fully on the election races for the Senate , the House, and for Governor. The entire point of the Lieberman plan was to bog down the Democratic party for his and other Republicans benefit.
"During the campaign, Bysiewicz argued that if Lieberman and Lamont faced off in the general election, then there was no point in having a primary because it was a waste of taxpayers' money to fund two elections with the same candidates."
Just as you Bush flacks claim that voters put Lieberman in... They also voted Bysiewicz in, and she was up front about her agenda. You "joe whiners" can claim ignorance in this, but that does not change the fact that she promised to change the "weasel loophole" and she is delivering on her campaign promise.
I bet we won't see Joe deliver on his campaign promise to "bring the troops home" as soon as possible. Bush is already floating the "add 20,000 troops in Iraq" trial baloon that McCain floated a week ago. You know Joe will bend over on Bush's newest "Stay the course!" rhetoric.
Joe should have been a man and joined the walk of RED SHAME before the primaries. Instead he used a wussy loophole for the benfit of his Republican benefactors.
You wanted to keep this wimp-protector law in place? You should not have voted for Bysiewicz.
