<p>I swear…these guys just can’t catch a break. If it weren’t for bad luck, they wouldn’t have any luck at all. I mean, what are the odds that the “lost” e-mails at the White House and Republican National Committee would just happen to be the ones that Congress needs for an investigation?</p>
<p>Oh, and thank God that Harriet Miers isn’t on the Supreme Court. At least there’s a chance that Alito and Roberts will choke on rewriting the Constitution to grant Executive Privledge to the national political parties.</p>
<p>Yes. I suspect all their high and mighty ideals about strict constructionism will go out the window when they are asked to affirm executive privlidge to protect Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee.</p>
<p>I is becoming apparent why Bush thought that Harriet Meirs was the most qualified person in the United States to be a Supreme Court justice. No question that she would carry his water.</p>
<p>As I recall, one of the benchmarks for measuring victory in Iraq was the Iraqis standing up for their own political future, especially in the development of Iraqi police forces capable of expressing the political will of the Iraqi people. So, would this snippet from today’s AP story be considered progress against those benchmarks?</p>
<p>“Officers chanted “No, no to America! Get out occupiers!” while U.S. troops in two humvees and a Bradley fighting vehicle watched from a distance.”</p>
<p>I think we should grant them their wish immediately! Why are we still there again?</p>
<p>A second story from the British press last week got no play in the US media (the first was that 21 of the Iraqis from McCain’s market visit had been found dead three days later).</p>
<p>I have no idea whether this second story is true or not, but the reporter provides alleged insight into the real military plans behind the “surge”.</p>
<p>The first step is to wall off Baghdad neighborhoods and round up and incarcerate military aged men to get them off the street.</p>
<p>The second step is more provocative:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing I find most troubling from the Bush administration is the lack of any honest talk about an end-game in Iraq. We have “the surge” and we have “benchmarks” that everyone knows are baloney. Yet, the subplot is a continuing long-term occupation of Iraq with no explanation for where this thing is headed. The lack of frank talk from anyone in the administration suggests to me that they are engaged in an obfuscation campaign. Otherwise, why would it not be in the administration’s best interest to address their poll numbers with some glimmer of an exit strategy?</p>
<p>“But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades - comprising about 40,000 men - south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful - and potentially aggressive - American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.”</p>
<p>Well, DUH. That’s been the whole point for a long time!</p>
<p>“A second story from the British press last week got no play in the US media (the first was that 21 of the Iraqis from McCain’s market visit had been found dead three days later).”</p>
<p>Right. But, it explains the disconnection in the Bush administration’s stance. If the alleged surge is simply a surge to stabilize Baghdad and buy time for “political progress” in Iraq, then why not discuss an end-game strategy? I mean…either the alleged surge works and you start drawing down forces next year or it doesn’t work and you start drawing down forces next year. So, why would the administration keep taking a beating? I mean…it’s not like Congress is demanding the withdrawal of troops now.</p>
<p>The answer: they have absolutely no intention of drawing down forces next year and the “surge” is just a ruse, a smokescreen to divert attention from the real planning.</p>
<p>The endgame is permanent military bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, and control of the oil pipelines. Exactly the same goals as those of the Clinton Administration. Bipartisan foreign policy. </p>
<p>Either the surge works and you beef up forces, or the surge doesn’t work and you beef up forces. The question is not the size of the force per se, but where you place them.</p>
<p>Hillary has already said, in keeping with hubby, that there will be a permanent U.S. military force in Iraq. The others will fall in line.</p>
<p>The Clinton administration never made a move towards a US military presence on the ground in Iraq. They put some cruise missles on the ground, but that’s a far cry from either temporary or permanent military bases!</p>
<p>I have not heard Sen. Clinton call for permanent military bases, either. She has said that a phased withdrawal of US troop strength, there will likely be the need to maintain some troop presence for training, humanitarian relief, and anti-terrorist efforts. I have not heard sufficient detail on that to form an opinion. I have read the Brookings Institute white paper that suggests the need for the US military to establish massive refugee camps on the Syrian, Jordan, and Saudi borders to deal with the humanitarian crisis of full-scale civil war. We are talking about millions of refugees.</p>
<p>I have not read any analysis, from any foreign policy expert, who suggests a troop draw down to zero in the 2007 or 2008, or 2009 timeframe.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the political debate in the US should be focused on these end-game issues. However, it is difficult to do that with an adminstration that is still escalating the military action instead of considering an exit strategy after four years of failure.</p>
<p>“The Clinton administration never made a move towards a US military presence on the ground in Iraq. They put some cruise missles on the ground, but that’s a far cry from either temporary or permanent military bases!”</p>
<p>That was the whole point of the Clinton genocide - to topple Saddam Hussein, leaving a friendly military inside the country that would invite them in. When that failed, the Clinton/Tenet lies of February 1998 (supported by Biden, Lieberman, Levin, et al.) sought to take him out “surgically”, leaving the Iraqi military intact so they could be invited in. When that failed, Bush extended the Clinton/Tenet lie (WMDs, delivery systems, etc.) to march in, with the support of Biden, Lieberman, Levin, Clinton, etc., who had already in February 1998 committed themselves to the lie, so they could hardly have reversed couse. </p>
<p>The idea that the U.S. is going to march all its troops out of Iraq regardless of what happens is a confused liberal pipedream. The Dems and Reps both now that, in the global scheme of things, the stakes are too high. And thinking folks on the left know better.</p>
<p>And, all of that was supposed to happen between February 1998 and the end of Clinton’s term in January 2001? Come on. I don’t think you can point to any shred of evidence that Bill Clinton was planning a US military presence on the ground in Iraq during his presidency. For one thing, mobilization would have had to have begun by early 2000 at the latest.</p>
<p>We don’t know what Gore would have done because, as you recall, he was not elected President.</p>
<p>He didn’t think he would need to do much. All of his intelligence was telling him that Hussein was going to be easily toppled, and that the U.S. would be invited right in, to repair the oil infrastructure, and to protect Iraq from its neighbors.</p>
<p>The day the U.S. leaves Iraq, the Kurds will likely be slaughtered like cattle, unless the gain significant military support from Iran (which is likely). (But it isn’t going to happen.)</p>
<p>As I say, I’ve heard nobody call for a drawdown from the current 170,000 troops to zero in a 12 month span, so I don’t know who the pipedreamers you mention are. It’s certainly not the Democratic members of Congress. Both the House and Senate versions call for a complete withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq during 2008, but envision some signficant troop presence beyond that date. I don’t believe that bases such as Camp Victory in interior Iraq will be a viable option as the full-blown civil war will make maintaining supply lines impossible.</p>
<p>It’s all rather moot for now since the current administration is still increasing the troop strength in Iraq.</p>
<p>According to a piece in today’s Albuquerqi newspaper, Sen. Domenici, having failed to get Alberto Gonalez to fire US Attorney David Ignatius, contacted Karl Rove and talked personally to the President after the November 2006 election. Remember, Domenici had called Ignatius pressuring him to indict Democrats before the election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No wonder the White House and the RNC is playing mickey the dunce on e-mails. No wonder they are sending the administration’s chief idiot, Gonzales, to Congress on Tuesday to “clear things up” in his inimitable style. Remember, he’s the one they used to trot up to the Hill whenever they needed someone to “clear up” illegal surveillance or torture questions. I don’t think Gonzales can walk and chew gum at the same time.</p>
<p>I think I am perhaps in a minority in coming around to the notion that Gonzales’ performance on the Hill was brilliant. I view it as evasion by both pretended idiocy and non-response. If you think his role in the hearings was to coherently explain what happened, you view him as a malfeasant idiot. If you believe he was providing the barest of lipservice to the notion that Congress has anything of importance to say about the firing of these US attorneys, his performance was genius in a certain way. And in the way that it was genius, it also connotes the scary lack of tradition that the Bush Administration has upheld with respect to performance and behavior standards for personnel; everything has been politicized.</p>