B and B

Three top GOP presidential candidates mislead and confuse

The three top contenders for the GOP nomination for President in 2008 are showing that they can no more be trusted to lead this country into an uncertain future than the man they seek to replace.  In their ambition, they seek to further mislead and confuse the American people about the dangers we face.

From the Boston Globe:

In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Senator John McCain of Arizona suggested that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would "follow us home" from Iraq -- a comment some viewers may have taken to mean that bin Laden was in Iraq, which he is not.

Former New York mayor Rudolph Guiliani asserted, in response to a question about Iraq, that "these people want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. "

However, none of the six people arrested for allegedly plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey were from Iraq.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney identified numerous groups that he said have "come together" to try to bring down the United States, though specialists say few of the groups Romney cited have worked together and only some have threatened the United States.

McCain, Giuliani, Romney -- demonstrating how they are no better than Bush.  Bush's campaign of distortions to promote the Iraq War back in 2002 and early 2003 has led to the current disastrous situation in Iraq and greatly undermined our national security.  After more than four years with ever-worsening violence, it now looks like getting out of there as soon as possible is the only way to start to repair the damage that has been done.

And someone please remind Giuliani that Fort Dix never actually "happened" -- the plot was broken up before any innocent bystanders got hurt.  I wish the same could be said for Iraq.

Funding the Iraq War

I have plenty of my own opinions on the current situation in Congress regarding funding Bush's Iraq War, but while I try to gather time to express them, at least two others have expressed viewpoints with which I can get behind.

From South Texas Chisme:

Congressional Democrats who voted for the latest war funding bill have been taking quite a beating from anti-war Democrats. I opposed the clusterf**k in Iraq before we invaded and continue to oppose it. However, I'm inclined to give the Congressional Democrats who voted for the war funding bill a break. Even with the support of every Democrat (and a few Republicans), they did not have the votes to overcome a Presidential veto. The stubborn jerk the American people put in the Whitehouse (twice!), the guy who constantly uses the troops for photo ops while opposing active-duty pay raises and veterans benefits, would not hesitate to increase the troops suffering for political gain. Bush has stated that ending the Iraq war would be the next President's job. Bush has never cleaned up one of his own failures. How could anybody assume he'd do anything different now?

And, from McBlogger:

You know, there is something to be said for being as obstinate as Bush and cutting off all funding from the DoD. It's brinksmanship and it's a game the Democrats will likely lose. I like Olbermann's commentary because it fully encapsulates all the anger and frustration I and many others feel. I don't like it because it misplaces that anger and frustration which should rightfully be directed at two places... Connecticut native George Bush who vetoed the bill that placed a deadline on our involvement in Iraq and the Congressional Republicans who let that veto stand.

It is to them that I say 'We're done'. The American people see past your pathetic and cynical attempt to hold the men and women of the US Armed Services hostage to your failed policies and misguided attempts to remake the world. While we would LOVE nothing more than for Congressional Democrats to throw a giant wrench in everything, we know that isn't possible as long as Congressional Republicans feel free to continue enabling the disastrous President Bush.

Iraq and the U.S. Senate

Democrats in the U.S. Senate, with the help of some Republicans, have been attempting to construct a non-binding 'sense of the Senate' resolution expressing opposition to the Bush/McCain path in Iraq. They need a supermajority of 60 votes in order to get it through an expected filibuster from the Rebublicans who still cling tightly to Bush's shoes.

In my opinion, the worth of a non-binding resolution would be to get such a strong majority, including a substantial number of Bush's own party, that Bush would be compelled to change his behavior. Given Bush's notorious partisanship and stubbornness, that requires getting something close to half of Republicans on board, and likely would require more than half.

Perhaps sharing this view, Majority Leader Harry Reid, GOP Senator Chuck Hagel and others opposing Bush's new tactics dropped their original, strongly worded resolution and latched onto a watered-down one, sponsored by John Warner (R-Virginia) and Carl Levin (D-Michigan).

Reading the text, I am disappointed in the Warner-Levin resolution. It does not read as an unequivocal disapproval of Bush's plans. A key section says, "The recommendations in this Act should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of,, the present level of forces." I do not see how Bush would feel compelled to change course even if the Senate approved it unanimously.

As Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) has stated, Warner-Levin appears to endorse the status quo, and that is completely unacceptable.

Feingold goes on the say:

Some have argued that any legislative vehicle that could be spun as a rejection of the President’s policies would be worth supporting. I understand that strategy, and it may sound good to some. But when all the spinning is done, what we are left with is the actual text of the legislation, which is an endorsement of the open-ended commitment of the U.S. military in Iraq.

I have to agree. If Warner-Levin is what it takes to get more than a few members of the GOP on board, then let them stay in the water.

Democrats and the few like-minded Republicans should revert to the original resolution, which will then presumably fail due to a GOP filibuster. Then they should move on to consider binding actions that may be able to have some impact on reining in Bush's destructive actions.

Can we stop the Bush/McCain escalation in Iraq?

These are scary times, knowing that the man currently residing in the oval office feels cornered — desperate in his refusal to change the course he set us on four years ago.  Will we let him drag the country, the world, down with him?

From former Senator, current Presidential candidate, John Edwards:

Almost 40 years ago the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the pulpit in Riverside Church and, with the full force of his conscience, denounced the war in Vietnam -- calling it a "tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust."

As Dr. King put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to humanity.

Today, another president is trying to escalate another war. And once again, silence is betrayal.

Congress can stop Bush's escalation, but they'll only do so if the people demand it. That's why today -- in honor of the memory and courage of Martin Luther King -- I'm asking you to do two things:

1. Join nearly 50,000 other Americans who have signed the petition calling on Congress to block funding for escalating the war in Iraq.
2. Tomorrow, when Congress returns to session, call your Senators directly and tell them to block funding for escalation. Click here for your Senators' contact information.

Let's be clear: This is not a time for symbolic speech and hand-wringing from Washington. Congress has a very real choice to make -- either they fund Bush's escalation and he risks more American lives, or they don't, and we start to bring this war to a close.

Every member of Congress is responsible for that choice -- if they know this war is going in the wrong direction and that escalation is wrong, it is no longer enough for them to study their options and keep their own counsel.

But the ultimate responsibility for our country does not lie in Washington -- it lies with us. All of us who believe that Bush's plan to escalate the war is wrong for America, for Iraq, and for the world, must do more than hope for action in Washington -- we must take responsibility and act ourselves.

Your urgent calls will help push the Senate to hold a vote on funding Bush's escalation, and we'll deliver your signatures to Congress to help ensure they cast the right vote when the time comes.

George W. Bush has made it arrogantly clear he plans to do whatever he feels like doing, no matter what Congress or the people of this country say and think.  But we still have to do what we can to stop him from making further mistakes with so many lives at stake.

While, I'm using a message from a Democratic Presidential candidate to help make this point, this should not be a partisan issue.  Plenty of Republicans, including numerous Republican Senators, such as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also believe that Bush's course is a dreadful mistake. 

Will there be a "Bush Plan"?

Will there be a "Bush Plan" to get Iraq out of its currently troubled situation and back on its feet?

[Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-] Jaafari pressed for a long-term U.S. commitment for assistance to help with reconstruction and debt relief.

"We hope that Mr. Bush will try to redo a Marshall Plan, calling it the Bush plan, to help Iraq, to help the Iraqi people. And this would be a very wonderful step that they stand beside us," he said. He was referring to the U.S. investment plan for helping rebuild Europe after World War Two.

What does the White House think of that idea?  From today's press briefing by Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

Q    The Prime Minister talked about perhaps a Bush Plan, likening it to the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. And when the President was asked about reconstruction, he said of course, the U.S. is devoting resources, but the job belongs to the Iraqi people.  Is there a different outlook between the Iraq Prime Minister and the President about the building of infrastructure?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, I'll let him talk further about what he was talking about.  But if you'll recall, there was an international conference earlier this week, more than 80 nations coming together to show their strong support for the Iraqi people.  The international community is standing with the Iraqi people, and they talked about in their meetings -- both in the Oval Office and in the residence during the lunch -- about the importance of the international community continuing to support the Iraqi people and the transitional government as they move forward on this historic transformation that is taking place.  And we've been, as the Prime Minister pointed out, providing tremendous support from the United States for the Iraqi people.

One issue that I imagine will continue to come up is the issue of debt relief.  And there's a donor's conference coming up in Jordan here shortly, as the President talked about.  So I think you're seeing that the international community is sending a strong message of support for the transitional government and for the Iraqi people.  There are a number that have come forward with commitments, there are a number that have made commitments --  and we hope that they will move forward quickly to fulfill those commitments, because it's vital that we continue to stand with the Iraqi people as they move forward to meet their political objectives, which they are doing.  The President talked about that.

As best I can figure, that's a longwinded, polite brush off.  He said, is essence, 'Others are taking care of it.'  So Iraqis should not expect much leadership from the Bush administration on this issue.

"Sovereign" Iraq

Top New York Times online headline:  Bush Says Iraq Vote to Stay on Schedule Despite Calls for Delay

Fallujah

As usual, if you want to keep update on what is happening in Iraq, Juan Cole's Informed Comment is required reading.  His description of the current situation is far from encouraging:

Heavy fighting continued in Fallujah on Monday, according to Reuters, as some guerrillas there demonstrated that they would fight to the death. 

Meanwhile, police stations were attacked in Baqubah and Buhriz in the east, and in Suwairah south of Baghdad. The fighting in Baqubah was so heavy that the US at one point dropped two 500 pound bombs on the guerrillas. Hundreds of people gathered in northeast Baqubah to protest the continued US presence in Iraq, demanding that the foreign troops go home.

Fighting broke out in Baiji, Ramadi and parts of Baghdad, as well. A Mosul oil installation was also attacked, and so was a US convoy near the city, and there appears to have been some fighting inside Mosul on Monday (a US general insisted that the situation there wasn't "desperate." OK.) In general the Sunni Arab regions of the country appear to be in virtual chaos.

Propaganda reared its ugly head on several occasions. US-installed CIA asset Iyad Allawi, the "prime minister," said he was sure there had been no civilian casualties in Fallujah. Allawi is gradually revealing himself as the pro-American twin of Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, "Baghdad Bob," who used to deny that US troops were in Baghdad even though journalists could see the tanks over his shoulder. Now Allawi wants to deny that residents of a city that has been invaded and crushed managed to escape without a scratch unless they were active guerrillas. Col. Mike Shupp joined in this vaudeville act, denying that there was a humanitarian crisis in Fallujah or that there was a need for Red Crescent aid.