Keep an eye on those goal posts
Fourth-string White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe hosted a brief press gaggle today from Crawford Middle School. It was fairly mundane, except for this exchange.
Q: Is it still administration policy that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended?
JOHNDROE: I think the President has made it clear that he eventually would like to see the United States in a different configuration in Iraq; there is no doubt about that. The surge was designed, as we have said repeatedly, to help bring security to Iraq. We’ve seen that there are signs of success on that front — the NIE even talked about that yesterday.
Really? Is that why the surge was designed? Because the White House has "repeatedly" argued that the surge was designed to give Iraq some breathing space in order to let political leaders make political progress towards reconciliation.
Johndroe may have just been clueless today, but it’s just as likely the White House wants to move the goal posts. Again.
It seems to me that the whole WH is clueless.
Speaking of keeping your eyes on the goal posts ....
Do you understand that you are discussing the tactics of military based hegemony as if there were a right way to do that?
1) Wars of opportunity are international crimes. The US subscribes to this via treaty, therefore wars of opportunity are crimes in the US. The US has committed international and US federal crimes.
2) Torture is an international crime. The geneva convention is accepted by treaty by the US which makes torture a US federal crime. Internationally, the Taliban and Al Qaida were aknowledged as being covered by the Geneva Convention. The US has committed torture on both, therefore committing international and US federal crimes.
3) … and more …
Do you understand that the discussion SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MILITARY TACTICS OR TROOP LEVELS. You are discussing the best way for a criminal to stay alive and succeed after committing a home invasion. The criminal will argue that he is there and there is no point discussing how he got there. The police would argue that is the actual point - how did he get there. The answer to that question will result in criminal charges.
Do you see? The US committed crimes - internation and federal - by pursuing this war, acts of torture and more. They want to start history AFTER those events, just like the criminal in the home invasion example. They must be denied. The clock MUST start at the time of the crimes. You are having discussions as if the original crimes never occurred. Crimes were committed. All that follow the commissions of those crimes are crimes as well.
Will a surge work? Are you an idiot? Put 2 million troops in Iraq and I promise you Iraq will get peacefull REALLY QUICKLY. But … so what? What about the original crimes? Does a forcefully subdued Iraq justify the original crimes? Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton, Lieberman and on and on would tell you … yes.
I say no …. in fact … HELL NO.
It wouldnt matter if the criminal who invaded your home painted your bedrooms, he would still go to jail for home invasion.
The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.
... repost here from one of my older posts.
Goal posts? What goal posts? It's all a mirage. A very bloody mirage.
this is one of the tactics of a bully. he will continually move the
line he wants you to cross. you cross the line and he will move it back some
so he does not have to make good on his promise.
it's too bad there is only a proverbial cliff behind bush/cheney and not a real one.
whatever happened to "leaving it to the next admin"?.........dumber than a sack o hammers.
No, it was "designed" to bring "security" to Bagdad. To give Malaki time to be overthrown under the bus.
The truth is, we were never planning to leave from day one.
Yeah, what L.A. Con said--witness the embassy and permanent bases.
Anyway, all this babble babble babble about Iraq, when the real story now is Iran.
"We." Are. Going. To. Attack. It.
Why aren't Americans more aware of that?
http://counterpunch.org/roberts08242007.html
psychotic MOFO's......yep you betcha
If security means a soldier posted at every doorway, and a tank on every block, then we can't do that. We just don't have the folks to that.
If the surge can't succeed if troop levels are reduced, and by Spring 2008 we will have to reduce troop levels, isn't it time to start talking about plan B? If we know that troop levels will be reduced next Spring, then so do the insurgents. Hasn't it been the President's argument been all along that a timetable won't work because the insurgents will just lie low? Does it make any sense to support a policy that is going to collapse under it's own weight in less than a year and everyone knows it?
We have been hearing that the Iraqi army is almost ready to take over for the last four years. That argument just doesn't play anymore.
off topic..kinda...I just heard the Preznit say"Ya know sometimes the experts git it wrong....this heppens".........................(speechless now)
Johnny2Bad @ 6:
Why would a Republican lobbying firm be lobbying U.S. Congressmen advocating Ayad Allawi as the next Prime Minister of Iraq. Replacing al-Maliki is supposed to be up to the Iraqi people. Are they advocating a U.S. backed coup d'état?
This certainly seems like duplicity on the part of the President. Publicly supporting Maliki while plotting in the background to get rid of him. I have a feeling that Maliki's removal isn't gonna be pretty.
Funny, I thought the splurge was designed to continue fattening the wallets of Bush and Cheney's military-industrial-complex cohorts, to appease the lunatic "Holy War" base, and to foment general chaos until Big Oil secures the 30-year contracts.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
Karl Bauer @ 13:
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/4668 (if you have divx movie player installed this will save the movie to your disk)
#2 anon nailed it.
As a descendent of native Germans who endured the subversion of their society, I can tell you, yes, these neocon bastards are every bit as bad as Nazis. That's no exaggeration.
Except the Nazis at least had the guts to fight in WW1.
Goering, Hitler, et al... -as despicable as they were, they at least had the conviction to fight in WW1, whereas these delusional neocon chickenhawks steering our nation off a cliff all avoided service during Vietnam like it was the Plague.
Carmikl @ 12:
Absolutely right. The "Blame Maliki Game" has been on for over a year. Its the same thing they did to Jay Garner in 2003 and every commanding General since. No strategy? Sh*t going bad? Bamboozle not working?...fire somebody on the second tier and either blame them by implication or give them the Medal of Freedom.
You know its funny. I have a number of friends (in their 50's and 60's) who are immigrants from Hungary. And they to the last of them are keeping their dual citizenships and passports current because they think they will have to leave quickly. They tell me that even under communist occupation it was never this bad. Zoltan even yelled one day that not even the communists read his mail.
By the way, all of these Hungarians are (were) republicans. I had them take that political test on the net and they score almost exactly where Kucinich is. They were shocked. They are beginning to understand that they have been used and lied to.
anon @ 18:
Better get a New Zealand visa....Quick.
Carmikl @ 10:
The goal seems to completely break the US military and render it an exhausted, helpless force, unable to protect us from real enemies. To boot out every competent general and turn the Pentagon into an entirely political operation - responsive only to the RNC and right wing evangelicals. To bankrupt the country so we become a third world country and China can bring our economy crashing down at a time of it's choosing. To render the constitution a dead letter and establish a power elite unaffected by the popular will. To render the voting process a complete sham.
Those being the true goals of the White house traitors, their plans are succeeding brilliantly.
The American people have fortunately wised up and no longer believe a word said by the traitors. Unfortunately, the only large group still playing along is the Democratic Congress. When they repeat the lie that they can't overcome a Presidential veto, remember that all they have to do to defeat the next "emergency" request from Bush is refuse to appropriate the money!
If he vetoes a the bill they send him -they can simply sit on their hands until he sees reason! Let him rant and fume! They hold all the cards!
#20 UnEasyOne:
Oh yes, absolutely there are forces higher than the U.S. trying to subvert our gov't and break our military, through blackmail (see "David Vitter", "Mark Foley" and "Madame Palfrey"), through bribery (see "Duke Cunningham"), terror (see "Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy anthrax letters") and downright murder (see "JFK" and "Paul Wellstone").
Why? Because the U.S. WAS the greatest obstacle to a New World Order. Because we WERE the most independent and free-thinking nation on the planet.
Fortunately, for the corporate globalists, most Americans are too damn fat, dumb, lazy and hooked on T.V., video games and porn to put up much resistance.
all these junta appeasing pundits catapult the surge is working mantra in every segment
Johnny2Bad @ 17:
Michael Ware (CNN) report on 8-22-07 was interesting: "For the first time US generals talk openly of nondemocratic alternatives."
US rethinks vision for Iraq
The goal posts will shift to keep the privatization of Iraqi oil in sight. When Sunnis complained to Bush about unfair federalism and resource distribution in the runup to the constitutional referendum, Bush ignored them. The Sunnis then boycotted the referendum and civil war ensued.
I would not be surprised if something dramatic happened this year to cinch the deal.
I am curious whether anyone has figured out why the oil minister was kidnapped a couple weeks ago? and whatever happened to him?
"he eventually would like to see the United States in a different configuration in Iraq" -- Shitehouse spokesfellator
“The United States has no legitimate longterm policy of staying in Iraq.” — Presidential candidate John Kerry, first debate.
“On July 25th, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.” — Speaker Pelosi
In order to establish permanent airbases, Bush intentionally lied to the United States and our Congress. In order to serve the function of creating a civil war, he ARMED any present hostiles by failing to guard the known controlled depots of weapons and high-explosives. Immediately after this failure of command responsibility, the IED death toll to our soldiers went up EIGHTY PERCENT.
He, the decider, is a warcriminal, and his policy can only be understood in the context of the Nuremberg trials. The Democratic leadership understands that the intended policy is as illegal as the lies he told, and the votes he stole, to take the country into such shame.
UnEasyOne @ 20:
The American people have elected three Democratic Presidents in a row. They didn't have to 'wise up' any more than they did.
That's a false assertion. Your suggestions of 'cutting off funds' and stonewalling military services bills is NOT ever going to come from a Democratic-run Congress, because further damaging the Constitution is not a proper strategy.
We DO NOT have the votes to overcome veto in the House, contrary to what you say. And neither is there power to 'just sit on our hands.' Only those with no grasp of how democracy under our system works can presume that Speaker Gingrich's behavior will be repeated by Speaker Pelosi. It will not.
We will again be debating and passing significant transformation of Iraq policy in a couple of weeks. The Speaker, and the Dem party, have ZERO intention of closing Congress, and to hell with Gingrichism. The desire for 'good dictators' among leftists will continue, no doubt. You look in vain in the Democratic party for that sort of politics.
Paul in LA @ 25:
I am going to make this as simple as possible, troll - so you can understand.
Congress has the power of the purse. When Bush asks the congress for another appropriation, they will pass a bill. If Bush vetoes that bill, that is his prerogative. You apparently are contending that that veto obligates congress to write another blank check.
Where is that in the constitution, pray tell?
Us "leftists" are tired of the dictator. 75% of the American people now oppose this stupid war and Republican is now the third most popular party - after Independents. I call that wising up. After writing the last blank check, congresses' popularity plunged to 14%. Apparently you equate carrying out the popular will to a desire for a "good dictator" (as opposed to the lousy one we have now.)
I never claimed that congress had the votes to override a veto - as the literate amongst us already know. I merely pointed out that the power is theirs - unless they abdicate it again.
Gingrich shut down the government, troll - where did I propose that? "Cutting off funds" and "stonewalling military service bills" were your words, troll - not mine. Guess that's why you didn't quote the whole comment. Bush is the supplicant here and the troops will get funded - but any pretense that the dictatorial Bush administration is somehow preserving the constitution by emasculating congress, or that exercising their constitutional prerogatives is "further damaging our constitution" is insane. Maybe you could read that document sometime?
Riding roughshod over congress is dictatorial - and completely in keeping with this administration. Last time he bullied and refused to negotiate. Congress caved. If Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic congress do that again, there will be a whole lot of surprising upsets in the '08 primaries - and a lot of new faces - quite possibly even in the Speaker's chair.
Q: Is it still administration policy that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended?
JOHNDROE: I think the President has made it clear that he eventually would like to see the United States in a different configuration in Iraq
Inadvertantly, he just answered the question: Yes, the occupation is open ended. "Reconfiguring" the troops does not mean withdrawal. It means assigning a different task as situations evolve. They aren't going anywhere.
UnEasyOne Say @26,
Nicely said.
UnEasyOne @ 26:
Nicely stated. Paul in LA only seems to defend the Dems like they are some kind of heros that will walk right in and save Amerikkka. Isn't going to happen and this poster knows it.
CensoredFan @ 29:
Might as well defend the Democrats. They are the only other game in town. Everything else that does not support the Democrats either assists the Republicans or is just sound a fury signifying nothing (to butcher a Shakespeare quote).
The last time I read any comments that proposed an alternative to the Democrats, the suggestion was made to march on Washington with arms and the commenter got banned.
Meanwhile, I get a real kick out of commenters who claim to be "liberal" or "progressive" but throw around "troll" allegations to try to stifle dissenting views.
I've never really posted anything about the Iraq conflict cuz y'all have it pretty well covered. But in the discussion of the "getting out of there" necessary eventuality, & the opposition's "we can't leave cuz it'll be genocide" quick retort, lemme make a quick point on the ethics:
We all agree invasion is the waging of a war of aggression, a war crime & should never have happened. But we've gone so far down the military imperialism road now that most mainstream discussion seems only to take into account the fact that we have broken our bloated genocide machine (yup, you can call'em soldiers or whatever, i'm still calling murderers in uniforms murderers, if you're in my advice is get out while you still have some humanity to salvage) but the fact remains, we have had in our names that country decimated like so many Athenians on the island of Melos. And so, those Shi'ite & Sunni muslims, the "insurgents", we owe to them a massive debt. But it is a debt that can only be increased by the continued presence of United States military personnel & private contractors. As they are removed a concurrent action must be taken in the form of something like an American financed Iraqi New Deal such that what we have destroyed can be rebuild, by Iraqis of course, for what percentage of those young male unemployed "insurgents", do you think, would rather have steady jobs? I imagine a good many wouldn't mind being payed by Americans, so long as Americans weren't occupying their towns & torturing their loved ones.
UnEasyOne @ 26:
I'm not a troll, and oversimplifying is YOUR defect, not mine.
Stopping war appropriations during a coup is not at all as simplistic as you pretend. In the case of the supplemental, blocking the bill was not possible. You may recognize that word 'possible.' It is something that leftists just don't consider, because they ignore the existence of the opposition. Anyhow, leftists would just shut down the Congress every ten minutes, and that's why you HAVE NO SEATS.
As far as your electoral threats, you are HILARIOUS. Who do you think YOU can make Speaker? Are you one of the idiots who thinks that if Sheehan somehow on some planet like this one beats Pelosi she will become Speaker? Again, hilarious.
NAME the Representatives you will work for in 2008 (now). Name the ones you are going to put in instead of our current Dems. Are there ANY?
"there will be a whole lot of surprising upsets in the ‘08 primaries - and a lot of new faces - quite possibly even in the Speaker’s chair."
Name those 'lot of new faces.' You realize the primaries are in five months, don't you? You better get off your ass and start finding candidates. But then, you never do.
Speaker Pelosi is probably the best Speaker in forty years. She enjoys universal respect in Congress, and she EARNED her seat as Speaker, through TWENTY YEARS of representing her district (GSM Sheehan -- someone is wasting YOUR time), and five years as the first female minority leader in the country's history (and the highest ranking female in history up to that point). She was elected Speaker by general acclamation -- but consider for a second who she replaced as minority leader: Dick Gephardt.
Rep. Gephardt was a real firecracker. Leftists are so counterproductive that they would threaten the seat of a PROGRESSIVE SPEAKER, almost an unheard of level of power for our progressive caucus -- and a MAJOR BOON to our purposes in gov't and the nation. It's a HUGE accomplishment, but leftists can't wait to try and piss on it.
I'm not a troll, and I am a PROUD Democrat. When Rep. Pelosi led SIXTY PERCENT of House Dems to vote NAY on the Iraq Resolution, and became leader as a result, anyone with half a clue rejoiced. I rejoice that she is Speaker -- and the disaffiliated leftists who have NO CLUE about what kind of popularity that requires immediately shot themselves in the foot, first by throwing a tantrum in Chairman Conyers' office, and then in this bogus GSM Sheehan 'run' for Congress -- a job SHE DOESN'T WANT.
Stunts. That is all the leftists know how to do. They don't govern -- can't organize enough to even put one or two leftists into the House. But what they REALLY love to do is crap on the Progressives, and bark about all the candidates they are going to run, all the hell they are going to make, one of these days, when they finally get off their asses. Thing is, leftists are so disaffiliated, that they won't go door-to-door -- why bother? The 'sheeple' are the problem, not their attachment to their cosy chair and their pseudo-threatening rhetoric.
I've street protested something like 600 hours in the last six years. I've run a two-year impeachment effort, generated and passed out thousands of bumper stickers, worked for a year to recall the governator, been handcuffed, spat upon, punched, and maced. If I'm a troll, than you, UnEasy, are a 100 pound tub of lard.
What do you actually accomplish, other than attacking the WRONG PEOPLE?
UnEasyOne @ 26:
UnEasyOne @ 20:
Usually I don't feed trolls - but here goes.
What do trolls do? Well, they set up straw men and argue with them. They mischaracterize the position of their opponent and attempt to belittle them with insults and namecalling. (It is of course, true that when I observed the troll attack on myself, I pointed that out - but lets look at other troll characteristics.) When the other side makes a factual point (like the incredible unpopularity of the congress) the troll becomes incensed, shifts ground, makes unprovable assertions and never directly engages on the point. He continues to deliberately misunderstand and mischaracterisze the opposition - because he can't argue against the actual position.
I don't have the time or inclination to identify all of this troll's straw men - but I do invite anybody still reading here to read the point-counterpoint and decide for yourself. A wooden nickel for whomever identifies the most BS. Paul is obviously closely related to or working for Ms Pelosi - so don't go too hard on him.
As for her being the finest speaker in 40 years? I sincerely hope that turns out to be true - but assertions, no matter how emotional, don't make it so - and I have seen as much evidence to the contrary as otherwise so far.
Comments are closed on this entry