My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://madamab.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label General Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Petraeus. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

What is Going On with John McCain?

He absolutely, positively refuses to get the most basic elements of the Iraq occupation correct.
At today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, McCain seems to have gotten it wrong again, when interviewing Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

MCCAIN: "There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future
of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?"

PETRAEUS: "It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major
a threat as it was say, 15 months ago."

MCCAIN: "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?

PETRAEUS: "No, sir."

MCCAIN: "Or Sunnis or anybody else then?
What is he, guessing?

This is absurd. And it's not the first time he's done it, either - there have been four other occasions on which he has stated that Iran and Al-Qaeda are directly linked.

And as for the actions of Muqtada Al-Sadr last week, McCain seems to be a tad confused as well.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:

It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. … With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.

In fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed. Experts agree that Sadr’s influence was strengthened — rather than diminished — by the Basra battle. Finally, the New York Times reported Friday that at least 1,000 Iraqi national soldiers deserted or refused to fight in Basra.

What is going on here?

There are two possibilities here, neither of them good.

1) McCaca is old and senile and honestly doesn't know what he's talking about; in which case, he is simply unable to be President; or,

2) He is insidiously catapulting the propaganda that Iraq would be doing fine if it weren't for Iran; in which case, he is trying to drum up a case for war against Iran, and is a carbon copy of the Warmongerer-In-Chief.

I'm voting for option two.

I'm adding my voice to the "Any Democrat 08" brigade once more. Anyone considering voting for McCaca, or staying home, should consider his obvious intentions to continue and embiggen, if you will, the horrific policies of George W. Bush. If you want, as Teresa Heinz Kerry famously said, "Four more years of hell," then by all means, help make McCaca our next Deciderer.

But be prepared for The Worst President Evah, Part Deux. Because "there will be other wars."

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Personally, I Prefer THIS Petraeus Report.

I don't know about the Deciderer, but THIS is the "general on the ground" that I'm listening to.

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
Can I just say, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

But wait - there's more. Lest you think that Fallon's objections are simply based on Petraeus' nose being firmly up the Chimp-in-chief's butt:

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.
Is it even necessary to point out that Fallon is completely right, and Petraeus can't even state the mission in Iraq, much less state that the occupation is making Americans safer?

Apparently, in Bushbotonia, no reality-based generals need apply.

Monday, September 10, 2007

The "Report" Formerly Known As Petraeus

General David Petraeus (if that IS his real name!) testifies today instead of September 11th, as was intended by Fear and Loathing, Inc. He will be giving the party line on the escalation, pretending that it is "working." And that will be the end of the much-ballyhooed excuse for Bush and the Republics to roadblock on withdrawing from Iraq.

Unless Iraq became a functioning democracy last night, and the civil war and the insurgency have both ended, I don't see how the Bush Administration can claim "success" in Iraq on any front. We don't even have the oil we came to steal yet! Of course, the non-doctored GAO report that was recently leaked to the media showed that the occupation has been a complete disaster, and that the escalation did not give the government time to build consensus and calm down the population. Quelle surprise.

We took a country that, while run by a dictator, was functioning and hostile to Islamic fundamentalism - supposedly the greatest enemy EVAH! - and have converted it into a seething cauldron of sectarian violence and terrorism. Heckuva job, Bush!

This is the letter I wrote to my Congresscritters today:


I would like to say that the American people are with you, not with Bush, Petraeus and the Republicans. We support YOU and we want you to end this occupation immediately. Please, please use your power of the purse and do not give Bush any more money for Iraq. It is wrong, politically and morally, for one more person to be killed for oil, ego and a failed neo-conservative dream of American world domination.

The Democrats want to end the war, but many are afraid to take drastic measures to do so - such as shutting down any funds to the government until Bush and the Republics agree to a withdrawal date, or begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. We need to send our representatives our support, to give them the strength to go further than anyone should have to go to end this war.

Reasonable measures do not work with sociopaths. It's time to swing the big stick.

Friday, August 24, 2007

How Long, Lord, How Long?

Who in the reality-based community - otherwise known as the vast majority of Americans - thinks bringing the troops home is a bad idea, at this point in the Worst Groundhog Day Ever?

It appears that Bush might be counting his "continue the surge forever" supporters on the fingers of one hand. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace - who will not be re-appointed in September - wants the Deciderer to hear HIS voice and make the right decision.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to tell President Bush to cut the US footprint in Iraq next year by almost half, according to an article in Friday's (registration-restricted) LA Times.

Officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace will convey concerns by the chiefs that keeping in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq into 2008 will "severely strain" the US armed forces.

This assessment, the paper says, may sow discord with top Bush officials and Bush's top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who continue to push for more troops.

Interestingly, Pace, who was appointed by President Bush, will not be reappointed when his term comes up in September.

Petraeus will likely back the White House view that a continued surge is required to produce "political progress" in Iraq.

"Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it," according to the Times.

So, the military doesn't want us there any more. Even loyal Bushie General Petraeus recently showed uncertainty about our mission Over There. Meanwhile, respected Republic Senator John Warner pled with President Bush yesterday to start bringing the troops home by Christmas - essentially, the same timetable Mr. Pace is recommending.

There's only so long any President has been able to stay in office without popular support. One reason Bill Clinton was able to survive his impeachment trial was his high favorability numbers during that time. Our approval sustained him through the Republic Congress' heinous misuse of power.

But this time, Bush is finally starting to lose the military and Congressional firewall that has been protecting him and his cronies from the justified wrath of the American people.

How long, Lord, how long, before justice is done and our neocon dreams of empire can finally be extinguished? How long before we turn from killing and towards diplomacy and integrity? I suspect that if the Democrats continue to tear down the wall - not much longer.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

The "Petraeus" Report, Coming to You Straight From....Karen Hughes?

We all knew that the September 15th report on the "surge", pronounced by the White House as the definitive, on-the-ground report from General David "Baby Jeebus" Petraeus, was going to be a bunch of hooey. But I don't think we realized exactly how much fakery was going to be involved.

The fricking report won't even be written by Petraeus, but will have his "input", the American people discovered yesterday! The rest of the input will come...from political staffers at the White House. Holy bait-and-switch, Batman!

As the Bushies always do when they are discovered in a giant lie, they simply say, "We have always been at war with Eastasia." (To see all the times they claimed the report WOULD be written by Petraeus and Crocker, see this excellent summary by Greg Sargent at TalkingPointsMemo.

Peroxide Princess of Pissiness Dana Perino elaborated yesterday.

Q Dana, there's a report out today that the September Iraq report will be written by the White House, and not by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. Is that accurate?

MS. PERINO: Well, let me remind you of a couple of things. The Congress asked for these reports from the President; they asked for the President to report to the Congress. And so the July 15th report will be no different to the September 15th report, in terms of how that works. And the President has said that he's going to take the recommendations from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and then he will consult further before deciding on any possible next course of action.

I know that the Democrats will be voting on Iraq again in September. Let's hope they use this latest example of Bush's mendacity as a club to beat the Republics into supporting a withdrawal...and to get enough votes to put impeachment back on the table. ***

UPDATE: Via Huffington Post, the Washington Post describes the Democrats' reaction to the latest White House chicanery. (Hint: They're not happy.) It also points out that the purported Petraeus report is not the only one the Bushies are required to give to Congress in September. Worth a read.

***Want to help the Democrats do the right thing? Show up in D.C. on September 15 if you can.

Monday, August 6, 2007

I Thought Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia Was a Bad Idea...

but losing them to Iraqi insurgents who will most likely use them against us?

A new GAO report shows that about 190,000 guns, given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 during training, have gone missing, the Washington Post reports.

The forces were being trained by present-day commander Gen. David H. Petraeus when the weapons were distributed; according to the GAO, proper procedure was not followed, and the weapons have not been properly tracked. The Pentagon isn't disputing the report.

Officials concede that it is likely that these weapons, bought with American taxpayer money, are being used against US forces.
Since the guy lost almost 200,000 weapons in Iraq, I have just one question: Is it okay to admit that David Petraeus is just an incompetent Bush Lackey now?