« Mea Culpa (and open thread) | Main | Covering the New Secrecy »

January 09, 2007


the numbers keep adding up to show that the majority wants one thing, the admin is using the same numbers to show that not everyone hates them. what may be the biggest issue, congress. we haven't seen them act yet, so we can only guess. But it doesn't appear that they have the guts to stop the war show.

they could take the money for the war and put it into renewable energy and we won't need to take other countries natural resources. but that would be stupid, for there is no profit for the rich.

we are a country that learned how to do it from the british colonial powers. steal everything a country has and sell it to the ones that don't. we still own much of south america for this purpose. funny about the old colonial powers and how they still do their best to steal what they conquer.

I prefer Portugal. they used to be a huge world power, the Nederlander's as well. The Portuguese don't have empires now, nor wars. The Dutch trade for a living now, and promote freedom by action rather than word.

what are the other former "world finders" doing with their stolen wealth? Why is this still okay with everyone? Iran got mad after the deal we gave the shah, you know the rest. so that is why we don't like them? because they told us we couldn't steal any longer? look at the history. it sounds like the king is going to send colombo o' vasco, o' amerigo out for another round of exploration so they can claim the remainder of the world for their god, king and country.

soon, there will be a real estate boom in the arctic and countries formerly known to have permafrost, will be the target of the countries looking for something else to take home as a souvenir.

as a species, we can only prove that we are a retarded lot. all but incapable of moving forward. evolutional dead end perhaps?

You'd swear, based on this, that, election results be damned, Karl Rove is still telling Bush motivating the base is all that matters, and Bush is still buying it. They've lost everyone else on the Iraq issue, and all this my-surge-or-the-highway approach will do is push Dems and indies further into the "very strong disapprove" category.

It seems to be believed at the White House -- and is possibly the case -- that what takes Bush from 36% approval (around where he averaged on election day) to 30% (where CBS/Newsweek et al. have shown him since) is a dispirited GOP base. This strategy appears to be an attempt to push him back up to 36 by rallying the Malkin faction. But in what Alice in Wonderland world does such a rating strengthen his presidency?

As Michael Crowley said last night on Scarborough, we're in uncharted territory: we've never seen a president this determined to ignore 2/3 of the country (even Nixon bowed to reality at some point). I've been very skeptical of the impeachment caucus, but I'm beginning to wonder if some Republicans will not start whispering about the idea just to stave off utter disaster in '08.

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...

Thanks for the excellent post.

To me, the relevant fact in the Zogby information is that the surge is likeley to increase Dubya's support AMONG REPUBLICANS ONLY. That's what he's after, affirmation from/to his base. He doesn't care about the rest of America and he needs to hold onto enough of his base to keep himself from being impeached.

thats what this is all about...covering his sorry....self.


I have 2 questions:
1) What new policy can promise success when the old policy's failures have not been considered? Does the White House think that rolling out a "new" plan without regard to the old plan feel at all satisfying to those viewers interested enough to be watching?
2) What lesson will the next Rove take from the "Bush is a great front man" strategy? He must be realizing that an empty suit who is also vain and resentful is a liability. Is he already casting about for a more placidly empty suit or does he think putting a person in the role may indeed be necessary?

Bush may also be playing to another constituency--the military itself. If there is to be any relly significant change, Bush has to lose the military as well. He is promising them one last chance to "save their honor" and lots of goodies and an increase in forces if they will try. The previous brass put limits on how often troops could be sent back to the quagmire, but the new leadership does not appear to have that philosophy.

The best thing for the Dems IMHO is to put as many limits and requests for updates and benchmarks and the like on Bush's request so that in 6 months we can see if this really helped or just failed like the last several times we tried it. And if not, then that's it. No more Warners or Friedmans or extensions of any kind. Start the troops coming home. They also need to grill every one of Bush's appointees to every significant position on Iraq.

Bush appears to believe that victory is just around the corner. More likely it isn't. What we need to do is to stop having any more corners. Four corners and you are back where you started, unless you over or undershoot. We've truned at least eight corners.

re the military, he's already lost them.


“They’re going to cast it as a choice between withdrawal and surge,” said one Republican strategist close to the White House. “The public is not for immediate withdrawal or even a quick withdrawal, but they’re not for the status quo."

Strategist? The surge is to stabalize the main city and gear up in case they need to bomb Iran. The Isreali thing was just them getting in the way again. They threaten our troops on the ground the minute they announce attacks. Lebanon was pretty much the end of any type of agreement we had while the troops were on the ground. Sharon left and the retired mlitary(kinda like Plame) made it's move. Their troops were poorly motivated and trained and the invasion did nothing to improve them.

Bombing Iran is not much to be concerned about. It will be a lesson for the Chinese and Russians who made deals in Iran when the ISG(CIA) group made it's announcement about being used by the administration; not to follow operational queues from their intelligence and diplomatic corps in a known queue. This is one of the resoans Bush rejected the advice and went on to a less government dependent group(less CIA operations officers and less lobbying Congress(Afghanistan) for headquarters/memorials on the mall between war memorials). These deals are worth hundereds of billions in the future, so it may prove smart to do the bombing now, before they invest in the oil infrastructure.

We need a new plan for the escalation(too many there), surge(it's been there a long time) and withdrawl(maybe they'll be there forever).

Thanks for the excellent post.

By "losing the military" I really meant the brass, not the troops themselves, about whom one hears conflicting reports.

It is interesting that Leon Panetta (via Kevin Drum) said that the Iraq Study Group interviewed lots of military, including the top brass in Iraq, 6 months ago and none wanted more troops. But now they are backing the Bush strategy, at the expense of their own people.

Plame's there again as they announce CIA operations officers being used in Africa and Kennedy does Pelosi and Dingel's cash work in Iraq? Who funds CIA now anyway? DOD or CIA? The analysts are all DOD now. The CIA Review Board has some questions too and there's Plame taking care of business where no one else will like Larry Johnson and Jim Woslelcky(sp). It's sad that they need to rely on retired CIA operations officers to get the work done!

I think what the punditocracy is overlooking currently is that Bush no longer has credibility, even among many of his former supporters. So it doesn't matter what he proposes or what reasons or assurances he gives - few people believe anything he says anymore or have any confidence in his administration.
As for Democrats, I don't see that we have to choose between circumscribed forms of opposition, as some seem to be suggesting. We can do it all. We can hold hearings, try to limit funding for more war, keep talking about impeachment so it becomes less unthinkable in the public mind, demonstrate in the street, etc. We can do it all, and we are obligated to do so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad