Recently in War in Iraq Category

Yeah, I know it sounds either like a neo-con version of the Rocky Horror Picture Show's Time Warp, or there has been a really big shoe drop with the PrezNitWit accepting even the notion of the word "time" to be associated in any way with his Iraq War final solution.

Never fear my pretties. The administration indeed keeps faithful to it's roots in Orwellian double-speak by "agreeing" to sometime down the road, maybe, talking about negotiating an agreement in a statement so vague and meaningless it's announcement can only have one possible effect -- put an annoying speed bump in Barack Obama's triumphant sprint to the White House.

The statement, if you can call it that since usually those imply some sort of declarative sentence, speaks of inclusion of a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals."

Aspirational goals. Say that with me one more time.

Go ahead. No one's listening.

Aspirational goals. Not just goals. You know, things that you aspire to, but Aspirational goals.

After all these years of Bush Speak, I still marvel that they can confound and confuse me again and again. Not over what they are trying to sell us, which is the usual bar-b-qued defecation, but that I still can't figure out whether I should be resentful they treat us like children or horrified they are working at the intellectual level of a second grader.

Sometime, almost out of sight down on that horizon somewhere, maybe, hopefully, if we're all good boys and girls and click our heels together they might actually agree that the Iraqis will stand up so we can stand the fuck down. Useless bureaucratic, power-mad morons.

If we haven't kicked enough ass over there by now so that the guys we've been training for five frickin' years can at least handle the mop-up operation, they're hopeless, and so are we.

KO's Special Comments are not, often, easy to watch. He dials it up to 11 every time and then, after that, there's nowhere else left for him to go.

But you know what? In the end, he's the only guy who says what needs to be said. In the context of cable and network news, only one person -- Keith Olbermann -- delivers the unvarnished truth.

And speaking of context, KO thrashes McCain for complaining that his "not that important" comment was taken out of context:

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is "not that important."

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

And that, Sen. McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though, they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is "not that important."

Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces," agreement with Iraq, a treaty which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.

The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U.S. military bases in Iraq, from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.

Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain’s M.C. Escher dream-world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.

And when they come home, is "not that important."

Make you a deal: if watching Keith Olbermann is too exhausting for you, read the transcript. But if you want the full multi-media experience -- something at which KO and MSNBC excel -- let's go to the tape:

by Mark Adams

I remember it almost like it was yesterday, trying to outdo other bloggers with cute little names for the guy I called Scotty McManequin: Scott-bot 3000, McClellatron, Scottie McLiar, McClerrator -- good times.

Today, Politico's Mike Allen bypassed the embargoed publication of McClellan's tell-all book by (get this) buying it in a Washington DC bookstore a week before its scheduled release date and documents the atrocities Scotty lays bare in "whacking" Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and the whole merry band of criminal conspirators who "propagandized" us into war, lied about outing Valerie Plame, and twiddled their thumbs "in shock" for a week during the Katrina mess (much like Bush did upon learning the news of planes crashing into building as he sat stupidly in that classroom).

McClellan also skewers the mainstream press.

"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

"The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Next thing you know, Scottie will be referring to the Beltway establishment as Villagers. Funny how some decidedly non-mainstream media folks, my favorite rhetorical bomb throwers The Young Turks, were on this story six months ago, as was Shakes and a few other easily dismissed libs.

I love these guys. Figures that they're not even on Air America anymore. What a shame.

by Mark Adams

Not quite, but this is certainly movement in the right direction.

Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans.

It's nice to know that Congress has finally discovered it controls the purse-strings, even if it hasn't figured out how they're supposed to use them.

We've been assured by Matt Stoller that the Senate will put money for Baghdad bullets back in the bill and give the C+ Augustus enough cash to pay for more mayhem in Mesopotamia. I'm not sure how that works since the Constitution states that all revenue bills must originate in the House, not the Senate. But who pays attention to that quaint old document anymore.

All of this is begging another veto by the time it gets to the White House. And of course, that's all part of the game I guess. The sad reality is that this game costs lives every single day it plays out.

Five years ago, George Bush stood under a "Mission Accomplished" banner and announced:

Bush: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended..."

John McCain said the end of the Iraq war was very much in sight.

Now we need to know how long we'd be in Iraq if John McCain were president.

McCain: "I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years..."

A hundred years in Iraq.

And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush.

I've always felt that the job of government is to keep an eye on business and the job of the independent press is to keep an eye on government. So when I see the traditional media being lazy and self-loathing (handing the cudgel to right-wingers so they can be clubbed mercilessly) it bothers me.

Now, in just the latest episode of a news industry that cares more for ratings (and profits) than they do for truth, we're reading about the Pentagon-orchestrated campaign to use "miltary analysts" with the appearance of objectivity to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance:

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

By co-opting the role of an independent press in this way, we've taken one more large and consequential step toward fascism -- a system where government and business are indistinguishable and the interests of the people are subverted or ignored entirely.

Glenn Greenwald:

One of the most significant political stories of this decade, if not this generation -- the media's full-scale complicity with the Government in the run-up to the Iraq war -- has never been meaningfully discussed or examined on any establishment television network, including cable shows. While piecemeal quibbles of media coverage can be heard (of the type [Washington Post's Howard] Kurtz typically spouts, or the Limbaugh-driven complaint about the "liberal media"), no fundamental critique of the role the media plays, the influence of its corporate ownership, its incestuous relationship with and dependence on government power -- among the most influential factors driving our political life -- are ever heard.

Hopefully, the role, influence, and ratings of the traditional media have lessened as the role of interactive media has grown. Blogs, wikis, social networks, video-sharing -- all of these non-traditional media (and more) have made it possible for an alternative narrative to emerge that highlights how our own government -- and the independent press -- has failed us.

However, and in the meantime, we're awash in bogus "scandals," chief among them whether or not Barack Obama secretly wants to "kill whitey." I presume that these stories are playing out 24/7 because they are (wait for it) good for ratings. High ratings, of course, lead to higher advertising revenues. On the other hand, reporting the truth might lead to real change --- which, at best, may have no impact on the news media's bottom line and may actually hurt it.

So the next time you hear about a politican who might be untrustworthy because he doesn't wear a flag pin, remember how the Pentagon supplied the generals (all of whom wore brass stars on their shoulders) and how they lied about how we're doing in the war -- and how the traditional media put them on the air in the first place.

Condi Rice is being touted as a credible pick for John McCain's VP.

But I think it might be a better idea (for her own sake) to resign and get a really good lawyer. And not travel abroad any time soon.

Watch the video and then sign the petition at Condi Must Go!

It's incidents like this that make the New Hampshire primary worth the price of admission every four years. On January 3, 2008, John McCain (flanked by Joe Lieberman) waded into a quagmire that now threatens to bring his candidacy to defeat.

Audience member: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years --

McCain: Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for sixty years, we've been in S. Korea for fifty years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed...

Since then, Sen. Obama has said, time and again, that McCain supports a 100 year war in Iraq. [Note: Obama was being charitable -- at one point McCain actually said " 'a thousand years' or 'a million years,' as far as he was concerned"].

McCain has responded, time and again, saying he would only stay 100 years in a Korea/Japanese style occupation, e.g., as long as US servicemen were not being killed. Of course, he later repudiated that comparison -- then took it up again. But I digress...

McCain, Iraq, 100 years -- as long as there are no casualties, no wounded, no KIA. It begs the question: if US servicemen continue to be killed in Iraq, the 100 years will be pushed back ... but for how long? In other words, when does this 100 year occupation begin?

Much to his credit, beefy first baseman Chris Matthews actually asks this question about 5:20 into the following video (transcript below):

Chris Matthews: "John McCain says we will stay there 100 years without getting shot at. When does that commence?"

Pete Hegseth, Exec. Dir. Vets for Freedom: "That's if we have an Iraqi government that can do the vast majority of the fighting out front."

Matthews: "Well, when does this 100 years begin?"

Hegseth: "It's already begun. And 100 years -- that statement is misconstrued over and over and over again."

Matthews: "No, that's not what he said...He said 100 [years] without casualties. I'm just wondering when we start not getting casualties."

[Hegseth bows his head and snickers.]

Matthews: "That's not funny."

Hegseth: "No, it's not. But it's not talking about leaving without any casualties."

Matthews: "He said no casualties, no wounded, no KIA."

McCain is caught in a losing proposition -- and he knows it. No matter how often McCain claims Obama is distorting what he said, it doesn't matter. In fact, the longer he fights back the worse it gets (ironic, no?)

By fighting back, McCain simply continues to strengthen the bond between three words that may eventually destroy his candidacy: McCain, Iraq, 100 years.

Look for Gen. Petraeus to annoint Iran as the enemy of Iraq's political reconciliation today when he testifies before Congress.

Is Iran really helping Sadr (translation: "the bad guys") and hurting the US and its proxy Maliki? In a word, no. The reality isn't hard to grasp:

• The truth is that the Maliki government and its allied Shiite faction, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly known as SCIRI), are much closer to Iran than the Sadrists are.
• Maliki's campaign against Sadr isn't a noble crusade by the good Iraqi government against the bad Iranian-backed Sadrists, but a battle waged by a weak Shiite leader backed by one militia, ISCI's Badr Corps, against another, stronger Shiite leader, Sadr, with his own militia, the Mahdi Army.
• Not only that, the "good" militia, the Badr Corps, was created in Iran by Iran's Revolutionary Guard -- the same organization whose Quds Force the United States notoriously declared to be a "terrorist organization" last year.
• The maraschino cherry on this sundae of absurdity: It was the head of that Quds Force, an Iranian general, who bailed out Maliki after Maliki's assault on Basra ignominiously failed, forcing him to send officials to Iran to broker a truce.

Strategically, the surge has failed; it's been 15 months and we're still trapped between warring factions with no exit strategy in sight. Meanwhile, our army is being ground down and we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to produce a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq. No wonder 80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong track.

• Maliki blinks in Basra: A truce is implemented, but apparently Iran is calling the shots.
• How far behind does Hillary have to be to call the newspapers to insist that she's still relevant? Or, more likely, how broke does she have to be? Or is she simply trying to stop her campaign staff from tip-toeing quietly to the exits?
• McCain has embarked on his "Service to America" tour. He is visiting all the places where he grew up and got started in his career. The idea is that he is re-acquainting Americans with his life story. But see, here's the thing: I don't care about McCain's life story. Fact is, I don't look up to him. And I sure don't want to be like him. If anything, I want him to be more like me.
• And another thing about McCain: that TV ad. He comes on pretty strong in the opening sequence saying, "Do not yield...We're Americans and we'll never surrender." The problem? It's the words "yield" and "surrender." Why say that in a political ad? Yeah, I know, he says "we'll never surrender." But you know what? People don't hear that part. It's like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." All people hear is "crook" or "I am a crook." As soon as you say "we'll never surrender," people unconsciously think, "surrender is up for discussion?" Look -- all the Republicans are saying it about all the Democrats. And where has it gotten them? Nowhere. It's not a smart bit of political rhetoric, using the S-word for any reason.
• And speaking of old Vietnam war servicemen: Is it possible that the Green Zone is the new Khe Sanh?
• And speaking of Vietnam, Chuck Todd observes that if McCain loses, no Vietnam vet will likely ever be elected president. Think about that.
• And now for something completely different: The Supreme Court gave Rep. "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D-LA) a pretty big victory today, letting stand an appeals court ruling that the FBI was wrong in seizing stuff from his Congressional office. The Feds claim they still have plenty of evidence (think "freezer cash") in their case against him. Still, it seems to bolster those who believe in the separation of powers. Of course, at this point the score is: Bush Executive Branch 49, Congress 3.
• People toss around terms like "cult leader" and "Obamatron" when trying to explain the appeal of Barack Obama, but I say nothing can hold a candle to Rev. Moon, aka the King of America. And people say Scientology is crazy.