Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Bush is Winning the War?

This from the Daily Kos www.dailykos.com

Midday open threadby kos Tue May 24th, 2005 at 10:59:42 PDTGiven what today was supposed to be, it's sort of an anti-climactic Tuesday. Open Threads :: Permalink :: Trackback :: Discuss (182 comments)
Carnage continues in Iraqby kos Tue May 24th, 2005 at 10:42:16 PDTIt's not getting better.
A car bomb exploded Tuesday near a Baghdad junior high school for girls, killing six people, and eight American soldiers were killed in two days of insurgent attacks in and around Baghdad, the military said.But hey, according to Bush logic, that just means we're winning even more than before!
And nevermind that unfinished business in Afghanistan.
[UK] DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.
An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers.
The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world.
Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency.According to Bush's logic, the fact that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and that the UK has to pull troops from Iraq to try and stabilize the situation means we're really, really, winning!
How anyone can still defend this administration's handling of both these wars is beyond me. We could've snuffed out the Taliban, eradicated Al Qaida, and maybe even taken out Osama Bin Laden and the rest of his top cabal. Instead, we had to play out neocon fantasies in Iraq.
(Afghanistan link from gjohnsit's diary.) War :: Permalink ::

Kos said it best. yeller dawg

Newsweek, bad. Lying about Tillman? That's okayby kos Tue May 24th, 2005 at 09:14:03 PDTE & P:
Where, in the week after the Great Newsweek Error, is the comparable outrage in the press, in the blogosphere, and at the White House over the military's outright lying in the coverup of the death of former NFL star Pat Tillman? Where are the calls for apologies to the public and the firing of those responsible? Who is demanding that the Pentagon's word should never be trusted unless backed up by numerous named and credible sources?
Where is a Scott McClellan lecture on ethics and credibility?
The Tillman scandal is back in the news thanks not to the military coming clean but because of a newspaper account. Ironically, the newspaper in question, The Washington Post,which has taken the lead on this story since last December, is big brother to Newsweek.
The Post's Josh White reported this week that Tillman's parents are now ripping the Army, saying that the military's investigations into their son's 2004 friendly fire death in Afghanistan was a sham based on "lies" and that the Army cover-up made it harder for them to deal with their loss. They are speaking out now because they have finally had a chance to look at the full records of the military probe.
"Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country," White reported.
While military officials' lying to the parents have gained wide publicity in the past two days, hardly anyone has mentioned that they also lied to the public and to the press, which dutifully carried one report after another based on the Pentagon's spin.I've got nothing to add.

Last words on compromise dealby kos Tue May 24th, 2005 at 08:29:30 PDTThere are those who think any compromise is a sign of weakness, and there's little that can be said to change their mind.
But here are the plain, unspun facts:
Democrats hold 44 seats in the 100 seat Senate. One independent sides with the Democrats, giving Dems a 10-seat deficit.
Reid had 49 votes. He needed 51 to defeat Frist's nuclear option.
Reid needed at least two of four undecided Republicans.
Had Reid come up short, the filibuster would be dead in judicial matters.
If the filibuster was dead, Bush would've been able to put anyone on the Supreme Court. Anyone.
Radical Christian Rightist James Dobson is demanding the right to choose the next Supreme Court nominee.
Dobson's biggest enemy is the filibuster. Hence, he forced Frist to engage in the nuclear option.
Because of the deal, Dobson can't choose the next Supreme Court justice. Bush's choice, if too extreme, faces the prospect of a filibuster.
In order to save face, Republicans have gotten up or down votes on most of the handful of judges who are currently being filibustered. It's a price, but a relatively small one to pay to protect the filibuster during the next Supreme Court battle.
Given that we have a 10-seat deficit in the Senate, that's no small feat.

Yeah, but I still do not like it. We got blackmailed, bigtime.

yeller dawg


Post a Comment

<< Home